Preamble

The Rouse met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

London and North Eastern Railway Bill, Southern Railway Bill,

Read the Third time, and passed.

Bury and District Joint Water Board Bill [Lords],

As amended, considered; to be read the Third time.

Urmston Urban District Council Bill [Lords] (by Order),

Read a Second time, and committed.

IPSWICH CORPORATION (TROLLEY VEHICLES PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL,

"to confirm a Provisional Order made by the Minister of Transport under the Ipswich Corporation Act, 1925, relating to Ipswich Corporation Trolley Vehicles," presented by Captain Austin Hudson; read the First time and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, and to be printed. [Bill 74.]

Oral Answers to Questions — INDIA.

SILVER EXPORTS.

Mr. T. SMITH: 1
asked the Secretary of State for India whether he can state in terms of British currency the amount of silver exported from India in the years 1932, 1933, and 1934, and the countries principally concerned in the import of this silver?

The SECRETARY of STATE for INDIA (Sir Samuel Hoare): The information in terms of rupees, which may be converted into sterling at lS. 6d. the rupee, is given on page 149 of the Accounts relating to the Sea-borne Trade of British India for 1934, a copy of which is being placed in the Library of the House.

TRADE RELATIONS WITH BURMA.

Mr. HAMMERSLEY: 2
asked the Secretary of State for India whether the terms of the India-Burma trade convention have now been agreed upon?

Sir S. HOARE: As I indicated when describing the position in the Committee on 10th April, the discussions between the representatives of the Government of Burma and the Government of India have come to an end, and the two Governments have arrived at conclusions between themselves as to the arrangements which should govern the trade relations between India and Burma after separation. It now rests with Parliament to consider the outcome of these discussions, and the opportunity of doing so will arise when the appropriate draft Order-in-Council is submitted for approval.

Mr. HAMMERSLEY: Is my right hon. Friend aware that it was the intention to send a deputation from both Houses of Parliament to wait upon him to make representations as to the terms of the proposed trade agreement; if the deputation does wait upon him, will it be competent for the terms to be modified; if not, would he explain why be has not waited for representations to be made, since he stated, in a speech in this House, that modifications could be made, subject to representation?

Sir S. HOARE: Lancashire representatives, of course, decide, looking at their own interests, whether they wish to send a deputation to discuss the matter with me or not. I am always ready and anxious to see them, if they wish to see me. At the same time I would point out, both to the hon. Member and to them, that Parliament is in no way pledged or compromised. The agreement which has been reached is an internal agreement between the Government of India and the Government of Burma. I have always made it clear that Parliament is uncompromised by an agreement of that kind, and Parliament will have to decide upon the merits of the question, when the Order-in-Council comes up for discussion, which will, I imagine, be in the autumn. I undertake to circulate the draft agreement to the House in plenty of time for the discussion, so that the various interests concerned will have full opportunity of considering the ques-
tion in detail before Parliament has to take a decision.

Mr. HAMMERSLEY: Is it not a fact that my right hon. Friend said in this House that the Government, apart from Parliament, were prepared to receive representations on details and in respect of the time, and is it not a little discourteous for the matter to have been disposed of—

Mr. SPEAKER: That is a matter of opinion.

Sir S. HOARE: The position is exactly as I stated in the Debate. The details will be circulated and will be open to discussion, and the suitable time for discussion, both of the Lancashire interests and the other interests, will be when the draft agreement has been circulated, in plenty of time for the discussion to take place in this House.

Brigadier-General Sir HENRY CROFT: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, as a result of the agreement between India and Burma, a very large number of people in this country fear that British interests will be excluded?

Sir S. HOARE: It will be much better to discuss questions of that kind when we have the specific debate on the Order-in-Council.

Mr. HAMMERSLEY: Could my right hon. Friend say—

Mr. SPEAKER: We cannot discuss this subject at Question time.

Oral Answers to Questions — MANCHURIA (OIL INTERESTS).

Captain PETER MACDONALD: 3.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether any reply has yet been received from the Japanese Government to the further note addressed to them by the British Government with regard to the establishment of an oil monopoly in Manchukuo, and indicating that the Japanese Government would be held responsible for any loss on this account by the British interests?

The SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir John Simon): No, Sir. I cannot add to the reply I gave to my hon. and gallant Friend some 10 days ago.

Oral Answers to Questions — GERMANY (HERR HITLER'S SPEECH).

Wing-Commander JAMES: 4.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will arrange for a full and accurate text of Herr Hitler's speech of 21st May to be issued to Members.

Sir J. SIMON: I am obliged to my hon. and gallant Friend for his suggestion, and I am arranging for a number of copies of a translation of Herr Hitler's speech on 21st May to be placed in the Library of the House.

Oral Answers to Questions — TANGIER.

Sir PERCY HURD: 5.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is aware of the uneasiness created among some sections of the Moslem population by his recent statement on the Tangier question, and whether he can give an assurance that British policy in no way implies an attack on the Moslem religion and institutions?

Sir J. SIMON: I am aware of an uneasiness among the Moslem population of Tangier, and I am glad to have this opportunity of stating that the policy of His Majesty's Government is in no way directed against Moorish religion and institutions, nor has any proposal been made that could imply any such intention. So far from seeking to change the existing international regime in Tangier, the policy of His Majesty's Government is to strengthen that regime by seeking improvement in the administration of the zone, more particularly in the financial and judicial spheres.

Oral Answers to Questions — SPAIN (BRITISH STUDENT'S ARREST).

Sir ASSHETON POWNALL: 6.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether his attention has been called to the arrest in Spain of a British student, Mr. A. G. Ling, who was twice imprisoned for periods of three-and-a-half days for alleged espionage; and whether he will make representations to the Spanish Government with regard to the confiscation by them of Mr. Ling's thesis on architecture?

Sir J. SIMON: Yes, Sir. His Majesty's Ambassador at Madrid requested the Spanish Government on the 18th May to
furnish an explanation of Mr. Ling's detention. Steps are being taken to recover any of Mr. Ling's property remaining in their hands.

Sir A. POWNALL: Has my right hon. Friend any information when these are likely to be recovered, because the thesis has to be submitted on Monday next for Mr. Ling's examination in architecture?

Sir J. SIMON: I did not know the fact added by my hon. Friend. I hope it will be done speedily, but I am not sure when it will be.

Oral Answers to Questions — EGGS (IMPORTS).

Mr. R. J. RUSSELL: 9.
asked the Minister of Agriculture whether foreign countries have responded to his appeal to reduce imports of eggs in shell by 10 per cent.; and whether he can explain the increase from the Netherlands for the four months ended 30th April of this year from 247, 626 great hundreds to 1,047, 144 great hundreds as compared with the same period last year?

The MINISTER of AGRICULTURE (Mr. Elliot): Imports of eggs in shell during the first four months of this year from foreign countries other than the Netherlands showed a reduction substantially greater than the 10 per cent. proposed. I understand that the increase in Netherlands supplies is given as being due to a variety of circumstances, the most important being a decline in the German market for Netherlands eggs.

Oral Answers to Questions — POST OFFICE.

TELEPHONE CHARGES.

Mr. JAMES MacANDREW: 10.
asked the Postmaster-General whether he will consider extending the policy of reducing charges as a means of popularising the telephone in preference to spending money on its advertisement?

The POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Sir Kingsley Wood): The reduction of telephone charges continues to be a main aim of Post Office policy; but I am satisfied that the present expenditure on publicity is of financial advantage to the telephone service and thus assists the policy of rate reduction.

Mr. MacANDREW: Can my right hon. Friend state how much has been spent on advertising?

SAVINGS BANK DEPOSITS.

Miss CAZALET: 12.
asked the Postmaster-General the amount of savings in the Post Office Savings Bank, and the number of individual holdings represented in May, 1931, and at the present time, respectively?

Sir K. WOOD: The amount of deposits with accrued interest in the Post Office Savings Bank is approximately £369,750,000 and the number of individual accounts 9,720,000. The corresponding figures for May, 1931, were £294,000,000 and 9,370,000 respectively.

FACILITIES, CHANNEL ISLANDS.

Mr. THORNE: 13.
asked the Postmaster-General whether he is aware of the poor facilities for the collection and delivery of mails from Guernsey to the island of Alderney; whether he can state the times of daily collections and deliveries of mails both to and from the mainland; and whether he intends taking any action in the matter?

Sir K. WOOD: I am inquiring into the matter and will write to the hon. Member.

POSTAL RATES (HIS MAJESTY'S FORCES).

15. Mr. HUTCHISON: asked the Postmaster-General for what reason the specially favourable postage rates for letters and parcels to members of His Majesty's Forces abroad are not extended to officers and men of the British Army or Air Force stationed in Egypt, Sudan, Palestine, India, Iraq, or Hong Kong, and elsewhere?

Sir K. WOOD: Except in the case of the China Command (Shanghai Area and Tientsin Area) to which an Army Post. Office is attached, letters and parcels for officers and men of the British Amy or Air Force stationed abroad are delivered through the Civil Post Office and must therefore be subject to the same rates and conditions as civil letters and parcels. The Imperial rate of letter postage (1½d. for the first ounce and ld. for each additional ounce) applies, however, to letters for all the countries mentioned by my hon. Friend except Iraq.

Mr. HUTCHISON: Does not my right hon. Friend think that this is a matter
for serious consideration? As these men are sent out there by this country to serve, should they not, therefore, have the same postal rates as in this country?

Sir K. WOOD: Perhaps my hon. Friend will see me about the matter.

SITE, STEPNEY.

Mr. JANNER: 16.
asked the Postmaster-General whether any decision has been arrived at yet with regard to the using of the plot of land at the corner of Deal Street and Hanbury Street, Whitechapel, Stepney, for the erection of houses or flats, so that the urgent demand for housing facilities in that district may be relieved to some extent; and, if no decision has been reached, what is the cause of the delay?

Sir K. WOOD: It has been impracticable up to the present to obtain a suitable alternative site for the Post Office services for which the site in question was purchased, but the matter is being actively pursued.

Mr. JANNER: In view of the fact that this matter has been pursued since December last, will the right hon. Gentleman see that greater expedition is now shown?

Sir K. WOOD: I am doing my best to help my hon. Friend.

AIR MAILS.

Mr. HUTCHISON: 11.
(forMr. JOEL) asked the Postmaster-General whether he is aware that the Netherlands Government have decided that letters posted in Holland for other European countries shall go by air without extra charge if the senders so desire; and what would be the cost of a similar innovation in this country?

Sir K. WOOD: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. So far as the second part is concerned, the whole question of European air postage charges is under examination, and I will write to the hon. Member as soon as I am in a position to do so.

PADDINGTON TELEPHONE EXCHANGE (LEARNERS).

14. Mr. SANDYS: (forSir PAUL LATHAM) asked the Postmaster-General whether the percentage of
learners, telephonists, in the Paddington exchange is greater than that in other exchanges; and whether the chief supervisor attends personally to complaints?

Sir K. WOOD: The percentage of learners at Paddington exchange is somewhat above the average, but learners are additional to the normal staff of the exchange. The chief supervisor attends personally to complaints of a serious character which are brought to her notice. If my hon. Friend has any specific complaints in mind, I shall be happy to make inquiry, if he will give me particulars.

Oral Answers to Questions — PUBLIC HEALTH.

BLIND PERSONS.

17. Mr. GROVES: asked the Minister of Health what changes, if any, are contemplated in regard to the scheme governing the grant of financial assistance to unemployable blind persons; and what recommendations his Department has made to local authorities for the revision of their present schemes?

The MINISTER of HEALTH (Sir Hilton Young): I understand that my Advisory Committee on the Welfare of the Blind is at present considering the model clauses issued by my Department on this subject, and pending their report no changes in these clauses are contemplated. My Department has not made any general recommendation to local authorities for the revision of their present schemes, but the attention of individual authorities is drawn as occasion requires to matters in which revision appears to be desirable.

Mr. GROVES: Can the right hon. Gentleman say why he called attention to West Ham, which has operated a scheme for 10 years satisfactorily, and why he asked them to revise it?

Sir H. YOUNG: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will be good enough to give me notice of the question in order that I may give a satisfactory reply.

Mr. GROVES: I put down a question last week and got a reply which was not very satisfactory. That is why I put this question down to-day.

Mr. GROVES: 18.
asked the Minister of Health whether he is aware that in some municipal workshops for blind persons a large stock of mats, brushes, etc., are on hand because of the inability of blind people to produce such articles at a rate likely to successfully compete with those produced by sighted people; and whether he will circularise various Government Departments to purchase these articles more frequently?

Sir H. YOUNG: I am aware that some workshops for the blind have a large stock of unsold goods on hand but as regards the relation between costs and selling prices I would refer the hon. Member to the recent report on Marketing by a sub-committee of my Advisory Committee on the Welfare of the Blind (page 50). I understand that some Government Departments are at present purchasing articles made by the blind and I will consider whether I could usefully press for a wider adoption of this practice.

BIRTHS.

Mr. GEORGE GRIFFITHS: asked the Minister of Health the number of births in England and Wales for the years 1932, 1933, and 1934?

Sir H. YOUNG: As the answer involves a tabular statement, I will, with the hon. Member's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the statement:.

England and Wales.


—
Live Births.
Stillbirths.
Total (Live and Stillbirths).


1932
613,972
26,471
640,443


1933
580,413
25,084
605,497


1934 (provisional)
597,642
25,209
622,851

SCHOOLS (MILK SUPPLY SCHEME).

Sir P. HURD: 22.
asked the Minister of Health whether he is taking any action in respect of the refusal of certain county council medical officers to sanction the supply to schools of other than pasteurised milk; and whether his Ministry holds it to be within the competence of medical officers to exercise their discretion in a manner contrary to instructions from their councils?

Sir H. YOUNG: The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative. As regards the second part of the question, I am advised that under the arrangements made by the Milk Marketing Board for the supply of milk at reduced rates, the approval of the source and quality of the supply is a matter for the professional discretion of the Medical Officer of Health.

Sir P. HURD: May I take it that the Ministry does not intervene in this matter between the county council and the medical officer?

Sir H. YOUNG: Not in the circumstances to which the hon. Member refers.

Oral Answers to Questions — CONTRIBUTORY PENSIONS FUND.

Mr. BATEY: 21.
asked the Minister of Health the balance in the Widows', Orphans', and Old Age Contributory Pensions Fund, and the income and expenditure during the last year?

Sir H. YOUNG: I would refer the hon. Member to Table V on page 28 of the recent report of the Government Actuary (H.C. 82 of 1935), of which I am sending him a copy.

Oral Answers to Questions — COAL INDUSTRY (CLOSED MINES, DURHAM).

Mr. BATEY: 24.
asked the Secretary for Mines whether the can state the number of mines closed and not reopened in the county of Durham since the end of the War, November, 1918, and also the number of persons employed when they were closed?

The SECRETARY for MINES (Mr. Ernest Brown): As the hon. Member was informed in answer to his question on 16th June, 1931, the information asked for is only available for the period since 1st June, 1924. I am afraid I cannot obtain the figures at such short notice, but if the hon. Member will repeat his question in a few days' time, I will give him such information as is available.

Oral Answers to Questions — UNEMPLOYMENT (PIT-HEAD BATH ATTENDANTS).

Mr. T. SMITH: 25.
asked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware that attendants at pit-head baths at certain
collieries in Yorkshire have been informed that they are not now insurable for purposes of unemployment insurance although they have been paying contributions for more than three years; and whether he will make a statement on the position?

The MINISTER of LABOUR (Mr. Oliver Stanley): I understand that the hon. Member refers to certain pit-head bath attendants at the Fryston Colliery, Castleford. My inquiries show that these men were wrongly regarded as insurable under the Unemployment Insurance Acts. Applications for the refund of the contributions paid in error will be considered as soon as they are received.

Mr. SMITH: Can the right hon. Gentleman give the House an assurance that this particular class of workmen will be brought under the Unemployment Insurance Acts; and, further, can he say how it comes about that contributions have been taken for three and a-half years and that men have been paid benefits when they have been out of work, but that they are now told that they are no longer insured?

Mr. STANLEY: As to the second part of the question, the position arises from a High Court decision. In regard to the first part of the question, as hon. Members know, this matter has been referred to the Statutory Committee, who are now considering it.

Mr. SMITH: May we expect an early decision?

Mr. STANLEY: The Committee have a great many matters of importance before them. I know they are giving a good deal of attention to this matter, but I could not say when they will be ready to report.

Mr. G. GRIFFITHS: Does not the Minister think that these men ought to be inside the unemployment insurance scheme?

Oral Answers to Questions — LONDON GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY.

Mr. THORNE: 27.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he can give the House any information in connection with the winding up of the
London General Insurance Company, Limited; whether anyone will be allowed to represent the policy holders and those having a claim on the company; whether he is aware that a widow with two young children was awarded £3,000 and costs in November, 1934, as compensation for the death of her husband in a road accident, and that she will have to pay the costs of obtaining this judgment; and whether those having compensation claims on the assets of the company will be awarded a percentage by the court of arbitrators?

Mr. MITCHELL: 29.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether it has been brought to his notice that the winding up of the London General Insurance Company, Limited, entailed the loss of .3,000 compensation and costs to a widow and two very young children, whose husband and father, a working man, was killed in a road accident in July, 1933; that, in addition, the widow has to pay the cost of obtaining the judgment; and whether he can now state what steps are being taken to ensure that all existing companies, as well as those to be formed, are financially sound, so as to avoid cases of this kind?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Dr. Burgin): The case referred to by the hon. Members has been brought to my notice. An Order for the winding-up of the London General Insurance Company, Limited, was made on the 7th May, and I am not yet in a position to make any statement regarding the affairs of the company. I would, however, point out that it is the duty of the liquidator to consider every proof of debt lodged with him and that it is open to any creditor to be professionally represented at any stage of the liquidation. As regards the position arising from the failure of certain companies doing motor vehicle insurance business, I am unable at present to add to the answer which I gave to the hon. Member for East Birkenhead (Mr. White) on the 30th April.

Mr. THORNE: Has the hon. Gentleman seen the announcement of the tragic occurrence in Birmingham last week—the case in which a man had been awarded £800 odd. It preyed on his mind, and he murdered his wife and committed suicide?

Dr. BURGIN: I saw a newspaper report of the case to which my hon. Friend refers, but I am not aware that it has any reference to this insurance company.

Mr. RHYS DAVIES: In view of the great calamity that has befallen so many people in consequence of the failure of this company, do the Board of Trade intend to look into the problem to see whether such occurrences cannot be prevented in future?

Dr. BURGIN: Yes, Sir, certainly. On 30th April last, in response to a question to which I made reference in the original answer, it was announced that the question of legislation was under active consideration.

Sir ARTHUR MICHAEL SAMUEL: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that disasters such as have overtaken these people will be repeated until the Board of Trade take steps to enforce annual examinations of accounts such as will reveal whether mushroom insurance companies have assets equal to the risks they underwrite?

Dr. BURGIN: I think the problem is a good deal wider than that. There is no short cut by legislation ordering accounts. The matter is rather wider.

Oral Answers to Questions — ADMIRALTY CONTRACT, HUDDERSFIELD (WAGES).

Mr. THORNE: 30.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he can state the result of his investigations in the case of Messrs. L. B. Holliday and Company, of Huddersfield, Chemical Manufacturers, who are contractors to the Admiralty, who have not observed the fair wages clause; and what action he intends taking in the matter?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the ADMIRALTY (Lord Stanley): These investigations are not yet complete, since they necessarily occupy some little time, but I will inform the hon. Member of the result as soon as possible.

Oral Answers to Questions — ROYAL AIR FORCE.

MUNICIPAL AIRPORTS.

Mr. CLEARY: 31.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air whether any steps have been taken or are contemplated to militarise municipal airports or
to make representations to local authorities on the matter?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for AIR (Sir Philip Sassoon): There is no intention of militarising municipal airports. It is proposed, however, in view of expansion requirements, to endeavour to arrange as a purely temporary measure for some squadrons to be accommodated at municipal aerodromes, pending the establishment of permanent stations. Under any such arrangement the aerodromes would, of course, continue in use for civil purposes.

AIR ARMAMENTS (CONTRACTS).

Mr. BERNAYS: 32.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air whether he is now in a position to state what steps the Government are proposing to take to prevent profiteering in air armaments?

Sir P. SASSOON: As was stated by the Lord President in the House on 22nd May, the Government are resolved that no profiteering shall be allowed to arise in the course of the expansion of the Royal Air Force. The question is under active consideration in All its aspects, and my Noble Friend is confident that the aircraft industry will itself be most ready to meet the requirements of the Government in the matter.

Mr. BERNAYS: In view of the fact that there is a widespread feeling that profiteering is going on in armaments now, and the general disgust among the public that this should be so, will the Government recognise that this is a question of great urgency.

Sir PERCY HARRIS: Do the Government intend to bring in legislation or to achieve their purpose by taxation, or are they depending merely on promises from the interests concerned?

Sir P. SASSOON: The whole matter is under review.

Oral Answers to Questions — EDUCATION (TEACHERS' PENSIONS).

Miss WARD: 34.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education whether he is yet in a position to state what steps it is proposed to take to safeguard the pension rights of teachers affected by the economy cuts?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of EDUCATION (Mr. Ramsbotham): I am glad to be able to announce that my Noble Friend has informed the teachers' representatives that the Government are prepared to initiate legislation to secure that as from 1st July, 1935, no teachers affected by the salary cuts shall suffer any reduction in their annual superannuation allowances exceeding 2 per cent., the present position with regard to other allowances, e.g., lump sums and death gratuities remaining unaffected. The cost of this proposal will be borne by the Exchequer. I may add that the offer has been accepted by all the teachers' associations represented on the Burnham Committees as an agreed and final solution of the matter.

Miss WARD: In thanking my hon. Friend, is he aware that this announcement will give great satisfaction, because a legitimate grievance has been removed?

Sir P. HARRIS: Has any scheme been worked out to deal with teachers who suffered from a cut previous to July, 1935 —in the previous two years?

Mr. RAMSBOTHAM: All teachers whose pensions were reduced as from 1931 will be benefited by the proposal, which has been received cordially and has been welcomed by the teachers representatives.

Mr. G. A. MORRISON: Can the hon. Gentleman say whether similar arrangements are proposed for Scottish teachers?

Mr. RAMSBOTHAM: That question is one for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland, who is necessarily absent in Edinburgh on account of the meeting of the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland, but I am authorised by him to say that Scottish teachers have accepted the scheme and similar arrangements will be proposed for dealing with their pensions.

Sir HERBERT SAMUEL: Are we to understand that teachers who had their pensions fixed prior to 1st July, 1935, will suffer a reduction owing to the cuts made in 1931?

Mr. RAMSBOTHAM: Yes, it is true that the reduction between 1931 and 1935 remains. I have explained that the reduction in the superannuation allowance is not to exceed 2 per cent. There will
be a reduction, but they will have the rest made up. The solution is an agreed one.

Sir H. SAMUEL: Is the date 1st July, 1935, a date prior to which everybody suffers a grievance which will not be remedied?

Mr. RAMSBOTHAM: The teachers have agreed to this and accept it and welcome it. It is perfectly true that in the case of teachers retiring between 1931 and 1935 there will be a reduction.

Sir P. HARRIS: Have the teachers between 1931 and 1935 who suffer a reduction accepted it?

Oral Answers to Questions — CONVICTION, STOKE-ON-TRENT (SUCCESSFUL APPEAL).

Mrs. COPELAND: 35.
asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will inquire into the case of Lawrence Smith who, in March, 1935, was convicted at Stoke-on-Trent Quarter Sessions on a charge of fraudulent conversion and sentenced to 15 months' hard labour, and whose conviction, on 14th May, was quashed by the Court of Criminal Appeal and whether he will consider if this case calls for compensation to be paid, in view of the fact that Lawrence Smith was in custody for six weeks on remand and served 10 weeks of the sentence pronounced upon him, and has, in consequence, lost his entire business?

Major GEORGE DAVIES (Lord of the Treasury): I have been asked to reply My right hon. Friend is not aware that there is anything in this case to distinguish it from others in which a person has appealed successfully against a conviction by a lower court, and he knows of no grounds on which he would be justified in recommending that any grant should be made to Mr. Smith from public funds.

Mrs. COPELAND: I beg leave to say that I shall raise this question on the Adjournment, at the earliest possible moment.

Oral Answers to Questions — FACTORIES AND WORKSHOPS (INSPECTORS' REPORT).

Mr. RHYS DAVIES: 38.
asked the Home Secretary whether he can now state whether he has been able to arrange to
expedite the publication of the annual report of the chief inspector of factories and workshops?

Major G. DAVIES: As my right hon. Friend stated in reply to a question by the hon. Member on the 14th March, every effort is being made to expedite this report, so as to have it issued by the end of next month.

Oral Answers to Questions — ALIENS (BRUCE ANDERSON).

Mr. HUTCHISON: 39.
asked the Home Secretary whether his attention has been called to the conviction of a man called Bruce Anderson, a Swedish subject, at Barking, for counterfeiting; why the deportation order against him has never been enforced and what is the policy of the British Government in respect to men of this type who belong to other countries, but are not sent home apparently because their country of origin will not receive them?

Major G. DAVIES: Yes, Sir. This man's deportation has proved impracticable because, though he was born in Sweden, he left that country in infancy, and under Swedish law he is not recognised by the Swedish authorities as a Swedish subject. As my right hon. Friend explained in answer to a question by the hon. Member for Dorset East (Mr. Hall-Caine) on the 31st January, it is usual in such cases to make an order requiring periodical report, at stated intervals, to the police, and such an order was made in this case.

Commander OLIVER LOCKER- LAMPSON: Of what country is the man a citizen?

Oral Answers to Questions — ROYAL MINT (DISTRIBUTION OF GOLD PIECES).

Mr. HALL-CAINE: 40.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will state the names of the 25 persons who were successful in the draw for the 25 gold £50 pieces struck by the Royal Mint in connection with the Jubilee; and what is the objection to striking a further quantity of these coins in view of the demand?

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Duff Cooper): A list of the names will be circulated in the OFFICIAL REPORT. These gold pieces are not coins, as my hon. Friend seems to
think, but pattern pieces of no nominal value as currency, a limited number of which were struck with particular care for the benefit of collectors. To increase the supply now, after the allotment has taken place, would constitute a departure from the conditions under which collectors were publicly invited to apply for the original issue.

Brigadier-General MAKINS: Can the hon. Gentleman say whether the British Museum or any other of the national collections have received any of these gold pieces?

Mr. COOPER: Not without notice.

Mr. THORNE: Will the hon. Gentleman put one of them in the Library, so that we can look at it?

Following is the list of names:.

Mrs. Grindey, Stoke-on-Trent.

Gilbert Beale, Esq., Teddington.

Colonel Hugh Knowles, London, W.2.

Doughty, Esq., Bow, E.3.

Webber, Esq., Highgate, N.6.

N. K. Shelmerdine, Esq., Macclesfield.

H. E. A. Fleming, Esq., Shanklin, I.W.

L. P. Argenti, Esq., London, E.C.2.

P. J. Richardson, Esq., London, E.C.3.

A. M. Searle, Esq., North Finchley, N.12.

H. W. Joslin, Esq., Uckfield, Sussex, David Goldblatt, Esq., Shootup Hill, N.W.3.

N. B. Kark, Esq., London, W.C.2.

C. H. R. Robertson, Esq., London, S. W.1.

Miss M. Morgan, London, S. W.1.

G. W. Dreyer, Esq., Edinburgh.

A. Gosschalk, Esq., Hampstead, N.W.6.

L. C. Liddell, Esq., Ringwood, Hants.

Mrs. Layton, Wallington, Surrey.

Miss Singleton, Littleborough, Lancs.

Arthur Johnson, Esq., West Bridgford, Nottingham.

Mrs. Hindley, Blacko, Nelson.

G. G. Exner, Esq., London, W.1.

Mrs. Swain, Brighton.

G. Lawrence, Esq., Dumbarton.

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL FINANCE.

ENTERTAINMENTS DUTY.

Mr. HALL-CAINE: 41.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, with a view to facilitating matters for amateur dramatic societies, he will have drawn up a list of plays and operas which have
been held during the past five years by his Department to be wholly or partly educational, and on admission to performances of which accordingly Entertainments Duty has not been charged?

Mr. COOPER: The law governing the grant of exemption from Entertainments Duty on partly educational grounds provides that the Commissioners of Customs and Excise must satisfy themselves that the entertainment is provided for partly educational purposes by a society, institution or committee not conducted or established for profit, and the Commissioners are advised that in considering claims to the exemption they must have regard, not merely to the particular work performed, but to the whole of the attendant circumstances. The compilation of a list such as my hon. Friend has in mind would thus not provide a list of works which are exempt per se, and would not, I fear, serve the purpose he has in view.

INCOME TAX LAW.

Mr. RANKIN: 42.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he anticipates it will be possible to introduce legislation for the codification of Income Tax law during the current year; and whether he is satisfied that the preparation of such legislation is being pressed forward as rapidly as possible?

Mr. COOPER: The Committee which is engaged on the codification of Income Tax law is approaching the end of its labours and hopes to present its report before the close of this year.

Mr. THORNE: Have the Committee considered the advisability of obtaining Income Tax from the wife as well as from the man?

Mr. COOPER: I do not know.

Oral Answers to Questions — LATE COLONEL T. E. LAWRENCE.

Captain P. MACDONALD: 45.
asked the Prime Minister whether arrangements will be made for a memorial to be erected to Colonel T. E. Lawrence?

The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Ramsay MacDonald): While I am sensible of the motive which prompts my hon. and gallant Friend's question, I do not feel that the matter is one for official initiative.

Oral Answers to Questions — AIR ARMAMENTS (LIMITAION).

Mr. VYVYAN ADAMS: 47.
asked the Prime Minister whether it is intended immediately to convene a conference to negotiate on the basis of Herr Hitler's proposal to limit air armaments; and, alternatively, whether any and, if so, what, steps are being taken by His Majesty's Government to mitigate the tension that prevails internationally?

Sir I. SIMON: I have been asked to reply. As regards the first part of the question, His Majesty's Government, who have throughout urged the importance of promoting agreement on this subject, have for some time past been in communication with the other Governments concerned, respecting the possibility of negotiating, between the Five Powers mentioned in the London Communiqué, an air pact and an air limitation agreement. As regards the second part of the question, it is unnecessary for me to assure my hon. Friend that His Majesty's Government are devoting their most earnest endeavours to the promotion of a general settlement, acceptable to all parties concerned, of the various questions now outstanding in the international sphere. For the moment, I have no further statement to make.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRANSPORT.

MOTOR DRIVERS' HOURS.

Lieut.-Colonel ACLANDTROYTE: 48 and 50.
asked the Minister of Transport (1) whether any danger was caused to the public owing to the variation order granted to C-licence holders in 1931; and, if not, whether he will consider his decision to refuse such orders in future; and
(2) why he did not feel justified in granting the application of C-licence holders for a variation order; and in what way it would depart from the principle of Section 19 of the Act of 1930, in view of the fact that an order was granted under this Section in 1931?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of TRANSPORT (Captain Austin Hudson): My hon. Friend carefully considered this matter, before coming to the decision that he was not justified in making an Order the effect of which would he very substantially to relax the requirements of Section 19 of
the Act of 1930 in favour of drivers of all goods vehicles. While he cannot point to particular accidents which could be said to be due to the Variation Order granted in 1931, which expired two years ago, over-fatigue is a potential source of danger on the roads, and in present circumstances he cannot take the view that a wholesale extension of driving hours, such as was recently sought, would not be likely to be detrimental to the public safety.

Lieut.-Colonel ACLAND-TROYTE: If the Minister can grant a variation to holders of A and B licences, why can he not grant it to C-licence holders?

Captain. HUDSON: There is a difference between the A and B and the C-licence holders. In the case of the former there was no opposition to the variation, but there is opposition in the case of C-Licences. There are also other points of difference.

Lieut.-Colonel ACLAND-TROYTE: Are not the trade unions opposing this to force conditions on the employers, and is not the Minister allowing himself to be dictated to by these unions?

Captain HUDSON: I certainly could not accept that suggestion.

Lieut.-Commander AGNEW: Is there not some dissatisfaction among traders at the differentiation in treatment?

Captain HUDSON: That may be so, but Parliament gave sanction to insert this Section for purposes of road safety, and, if the Minister were to make the suggested variation, every commercial vehicle user would be able to drive for a greater number of hours, thus thwarting the will of Parliament. My hon. Friend is not prepared to do that without very much fuller information as to the working of the existing arrangement.

Lieut.-Colonel ACLAND-TROYTE: 49.
asked the Minister of Transport what advice was given to him by the Industrial Court which considered the application for a variation order for C-licence holders?

Captain A. HUDSON: My hon. Friend is not prepared to depart from the established practice of not publishing the reports or indicating the nature of the advice which he receives as a result of the statutory references to the Industrial Court in these matters.

LONDON OMNIBUS SERVICES (STOPPING PLACES).

Mr. HUTCHISON: 51.
asked the Minsster of Transport whether he will call the attention of the London Passenger Transport Board to the system of omnibuses ending a route run in front of traffic lights, and then, when the lights show green, turning across the street to return on the other side, with the result that the other traffic is held up and the lights change back to red before it can move, whereby confusion and delay is entailed; and whether he will, in this connection, lay stress on the case in point at the bottom of Putney Hill?

Captain A. HUDSON: I am glad to inform my hon. Friend that arrangements will be made which will remove the existing difficulties.

Oral Answers to Questions — GLAMORGAN AND MONMOUTH SHIRE (POPULATION).

Mr. DAVID GRENFELL: 20.
(forMr. GEORGE HALL) asked the Minister of Health the estimated population in each of the local government areas in Glamorgan and Monmouthshire for 1921, 1925, 1930, and 1935?

Sir H. YOUN'G: I would refer the hon. Member to Table 14 in the Registrar-General's Statistical Review (Tables Part I) for each of the first three years mentioned. The figures for 1935 are not as yet available.

Oral Answers to Questions — GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS (WOMEN CLEANERS).

Sir NICHOLAS GRATTAN-DOYLE: 26.
(forMr. DENVILLE) asked the Minister of Labour whether since his Department employs a large number of women cleaners in Employment Exchanges for more than 30 hours per week during the winter months and reduces the hours of employment to less than 30 per week during the summer months, he will consider changing this policy since it brings their average to less than 30 hours per week all the year round, entailing the loss of gratuity on retirement, 30 hours a week being the minimum which constitutes a full-time cleaner?

Mr. STANLEY: As my hon. Friend will appreciate, the hours of work of cleaners must be related to the amount
of time required for the proper performance of their work. This point is at present being discussed by a Committee of the Departmental Whitley Council.

Sir N. GRATTAN-DOYLE: 43.
(forMr. DENVILLE) asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury the Government offices which employ women cleaners direct and which offices employ these cleaners through contractors; whether he is aware that these employés in the latter case do not, in any circumstances, receive a gratuity at the end of their period of service, although the former do; and what is the objection to employing all these women cleaners direct by the State, qo that they can all receive the gratuity?

Mr. COOPER: The cleaning of Government offices is normally carried out by direct-paid staff. In certain cases, however, for example, when the landlord has made arrangements for the cleaning of the premises generally and a charge for this service is included in the rental, it would not only be inconvenient and uneconomical but also impracticable to employ direct-paid staff. I regret that a comprehensive list of the offices where cleaning work is performed otherwise than by direct-paid staff is not available, and could not be obtained without a disproportinate amount of labour. As regards the second part of the question, I am aware that direct-paid whole-time women cleaners are, subject to the fulfilment of certain conditions, eligible to receive a gratuity from Government funds on termination of service, and that cleaners employed on a contract basis, like the employés of Government contractors generally, are not so eligible. I cannot, however, accept the suggestion contained in the third part of the question, that on this account all cleaning work in Government offices should be performed by direct-paid staff.

Oral Answers to Questions — SCOTLAND (FISHERY CRUISERS).

Mr. DOBBIE: 33.
(forMr. NEIL MAC-LEAN) asked the Secretary of State for Scotland the registered crew, as required by the Board of Trade, of each of the fishery cruisers; and the number of crew actually employed?

Commander SOUTHBY (Lord of the Treasury): I have been asked to reply.
The fishery cruisers are not required to be registered under the Merchant Shipping Acts in respect of the numbers of the crews. The numbers employed are as follow:.

"Norna"
…
…
…
21


"Freya"
…
…
…
20


"Minna"
…
…
…
20


"Brenda"
…
…
…
18


"Vigilant"
…
…
…
15

These numbers are in excess of the numbers required by Board of Trade regulations for merchant ships of similar size.

Oral Answers to Questions — METROPOLITAN POLICE.

Mr. DOBBIE: (forMr. N. MACLEAN) asked the Home Secretary whether any action has been taken to investigate or refute the charges made by Leopold Harris on 3rd December, at Bow Street police court, that he had bribed important officers at Scotland Yard?

Major G. DAVIES: These charges have been exhaustively investigated by the Commissioner of Police, who has had the advantage of assistance and advice from the Director of Public Prosecutions. In the result it has not been possible to obtain evidence upon which it would be justifiable to take any action.

Mr. DOBBIE: (forMr. MACLEAN) asked the Home Secretary the number of police of all ranks who have been dismissed or suspended from duty since 1st January, 1935; and whether he can state the reasons for any of the dismissals or suspensions?

Major DAVIES: In the Metropolitan Police Force 27 men have been dismissed or required to resign as an alternative since.1st January, 1935, and 43 men (including 23 of those dismissed or required to resign) have been suspended from duty. The action taken arose in all cases out of charges under the Discipline Code laid down in the Police RegulationS. My right hon. Friend regrets that he has no such recent information for other forces.

Mr. THORNE: Can the hon. and gallant Gentleman say whether the men in question have a right of appeal?

Major DAVIES: I will refer that question to my right hon. Friend.

Oral Answers to Questions — ITALY AND ABYSSINIA.

Mr. LANSBURY: (by Private Notice) asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has any statement to make on the recent League Council resolutions regarding the dispute between Italy and Ethiopia?

The LORD PRIVY SEAL (Mr. Eden): My right hon. Friend has asked me to reply. Before the Council meeting His Majesty's Government were engaged in active discussions on this matter with the other Governments chiefly concerned, and during last week these discussions continued, both between the Governments and between their representatives at Geneva. In the early hours of the 25th May the League Council adopted two resolutions dealing with the halo-Ethiopian dispute, which were accepted by the representatives of the two parties. The texts of these resolutions will be circulated in the OFFICIAL REPORT. They contain specific reference to Article 5 of the halo-Ethiopian Treaty of Friendship of 1928, the terms of which the President recalled to the Council. The English translation of the relevant portion of this article is as follows:
The two Governments undertake to submit to a procedure of conciliation or of arbitration the questions which may arise between them, and which they may not be able to decide by the normal procedure of diplomacy, without having recourse to force of arms.
The resolutions also define, within specific time limits, the application of the conciliation and arbitration procedure mentioned by the treaty. Resolution No. 1 records the agreement of both parties that this procedure must be completed by 25th August next. Resolution No. 2 confirms this understanding by declaring that, in the event of the four arbitrators forming the Conciliation Commission being unable by 25th July either to agree on the appointment of the fifth arbitrator or upon an extension of time in which to continue negotiations on this point, the Council shall meet. In any event the Council will meet on 25th August if by that date the dispute has not been settled by conciliation and arbitration. It will therefore be clear that the Council will remain in close contact with the situation, and will meet again to deal with the matter should circumstances render this necessary.
The proceedings before the Council indicated that the liberty of the arbitrators would not be limited. They may consider all the circumstances bearing upon the differences between the two parties. It is understood that the actual delimitation of the frontier on the ground will not be part of the arbitrators' duties. This task, which will no doubt take time, will be carried out in due course by a special Italo-Ethiopian boundary commission. It is, however, satisfactory that both parties have renewed their assurances to proceed to an agreed demarcation of the frontier as soon as their present differences have been peacefully settled. Without suggesting that the Council's resolutions finally dispose of the tension which has unfortunately arisen between Italy and Ethiopia as a result of the Walwal and other incidents, I am confident that they represent an important advance towards a friendly solution. Both parties have accepted the co-operation of the League in seeking a settlement. By so doing the Governments concerned have made a contribution which it is earnestly hoped will lead to the early restoration of mutually satisfactory relations between them. But for the spirit of conciliation displayed by the Italian Government and its representative at Geneva (Baron Aloisi), together with the invaluable co-operation of the French Foreign Minister (Monsieur Laval), the progress which we are now able to record could not have been realised.

Mr. LANSBURY: It would not be proper for me to try to attempt to discuss the statement of the right hon. Gentleman, but, with your permission, Mr. Speaker, I hope that I may be allowed, I think in the name of the whole House, to congratulate the League Council, and certainly our representative, the Lord Privy Seal, upon the results of the conferences and negotiations, and to say also that everyone in the House will hope that this is the first and most important step towards an equitable and permanent settlement of the dispute which has arisen.

Following are the texts of the two resolutions adopted by the Council:.

Resolution No. 1.—(1) Whereas at the meeting of the Council in January, 1935, the Italian Government and the Ethiopian Government agreed to settle the dispute which has arisen between them as the result
of the incident at Walwal on 5th December, 1934, in conformity with Article 5 of the Italo-Ethiopian treaty of 2nd August, 1928.

(2) Whereas direct negotiations through diplomatic channels having been exhausted, the two parties have nominated their arbitrators as provided for in Article 5 in the above-mentioned treaty;

(3) Whereas since 5th December, 1934, other incidents have taken place on the Italo-Ethiopian frontier and the two Governments are in agreement in entrusting the settlement of these incidents to the same arbitrators in accordance with Article 5 of the Italo-Ethiopian treaty;

(4) Whereas the Italian Government in view of the request which has been made to it, makes no objection regarding the nationality of the arbitrators nominated by the Ethiopian Government;

(5) Whereas the two Governments agree to fix 25th August next as the date on which the procedure of conciliation and arbitration shall be concluded;

The Council;

Requests the Secretary General of the League of Nations to communicate in the meantime to the members of the Council all information which may reach him from the two parties in particular regarding the development of the arbitrators' work.

Resolution No. 2.

The Council;

Leaving to the two parties full liberty to settle the dispute in question in accordance with Article 5 of the Italo-Ethiopian treaty of 2nd August, 1928;

Decides to meet if, in default of agreement between the four arbitrators for the settlement of the dispute, an understanding shall not have been reached by 25th July between these arbitrators as to the selection of the fifth arbitrator (unless the four arbitrators agree to the extension of this period); the Council also decides to meet to examine the situation if on 25th August a settlement by means of conciliation and arbitration should not have taken place.

Lieut.-Colonel CHARLES KERR: (by Private Notice) asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has any statement to make with regard to the situation on the frontier between Abyssinia and the territory under British control?

Sir J. SIMON: I presume that my hon. and gallant Friend has in mind a series of statements recently published in Rome according to which His Majesty's Government have been concentrating troops on both the White and Blue Niles and the Sobat and near Lake Rudolph; have enrolled African natives; have built strategic railways towards the Abyssinian frontier; have constructed camouflaged
landing grounds under the guise of playing fields; and have concentrated aeroplanes at various frontier centres and especially at Khartoum. I am glad to have the opportunity of stating publicly that the whole of these statements are destitute of any foundation whatever. I may add that the Abyssinian Ministry for Foreign Affairs has informed Press correspondents that the Abyssinian Government place no credence in such reports.

Oral Answers to Questions — WATER SUPPLIES (COMMITTEE OF INQUIRY).

Mr. ATTLEE: (by Private Notice) asked the Minister of Health the extent of the proposed inquiry by a Select Committee into Water Resources and Supplies, and what powers it is proposed to give to the Committee.

Sir H. YOUNG: The law relating to water supplies requires amendment in various particulars, and proposals for this purpose have been made from time to time, including proposals in three reports of the Water Advisory Committee of my Department. It is considered that the most appropriate method of investigating what amendments are desirable is by a Joint Committee of both Houses of Parliament, who can hear the various interests concerned. The Committee will of course be at liberty to investigate other aspects of the matter which they consider relevant to this purpose. It is proposed that the Committee shall have the usual powers, that is, to hear evidence and to make recommendations.

Mr. ATTLEE: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the terms of reference of this committee will be wide enough to enable them to investigate the whole question of water supplies, or whether they are merely to consider certain changes in the law?

Sir H. YOUNG: It is certainly the intention that the committee should not be prevented from making any recommendations or suggestions in connection with the central purpose of their inquiry.

Mr. ATTLEE: Can the right hon. Gentleman say when the terms of reference will be available?

Sir H. YOUNG: I think that that is rather a matter for consultation through the usual channels. I cannot actually state the date 'at the moment.

Sir FRANCIS FREMANTLE: Will it be within the purview of the Committee to consider questions of drainage and sewerage, which have over and over again been included in recommendations as going with the water supply in similar areas?

Sir H. YOUNG: The first answer to that question must be "No." The specific purpose of the inquiry is to deal with the question of water supplies. But, as my hon. Friend will be the first to know, one cannot consider that question without also giving some consideration to the question of sewerage.

Orders of the Day — GOVERNMENT OF INDIA BILL.

Order read for resuming Adjourned Debate on Amendment [23rd May] proposed on Consideration of the Bill, as amended:

Which Amendment was, In page 30, line 21, to leave out from "months," to the end of the sub-section, and to insert:
Provided that, if and so often as a resolution approving the continuance in force of such a proclamation is passed by both Houses of Parliament, the proclamation shall, unless revoked, continue in force for a further period of six months from the date on which under this sub-section it would otherwise have ceased to operate
(4) If at any time the government of the Federation has for a period of three years been carried on under and by virtue of a proclamation issued under this section, then, at the expiration of that period the proclamation shall cease to have effect and the government of the Federation shall be carried on in accordance with the other provisions of this Act, subject to any amendment thereof which Parliament may deem it necessary to make, but nothing in this sub-section shall be construed as extending the power of Parliament to make amendments in this Act without affecting the accession of a State."—[Sir S. Hoare.]

Question again proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill.".

3.31 p.m.

Brigadier-General Sir HENRY CROFT: This very important Amendment came before the House at about 10 minutes to 11 o'clock on Thursday night, and I am sure that the Secretary of State would agree that it was not a question which should have been, even for the convenience of the House, disposed of in two or three moments. In fact, it opened up one of the very important parts of the Amendments to the Clauses for our consideration. When the Clause was before the Committee, the representative of the Opposition Front Bench, the hon. Member for Westhoughton (Mr. Rhys Davies) moved an Amendment to secure that Parliament, at intervals of six months, should renew or discontinue the operation of the breakdown machinery in India. Although six months might appear to be a too frequent interval in certain circumstances—indeed, it might be a positive embarrassment to the Governor-General to have such frequent reopenings
of the question—yet at the same time all sections of the Committee agreed to the principle that there should be a Parliamentary review from time to time. The Secretary of State stated in col. 460 of the OFFICIAL REPORT:
I dislike … any suggestion of turning the Federation into a more or less permanent dictatorship.
He therefore agreed to meet the point, and he said that he would
see whether Parliament should not continue to review the situation within a certain period."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 13th March, 1935; col. 460, Vol. 299.]
That point has been met in the proviso in the Amendment. None of us can test the principle, although personally I should have preferred to have seen the review once every 12 months. It is when we come to the consideration of Sub-section (4) that I desire to ask the Secretary of State for further elucidation. This Subsection seems completely to conflict not with the decision, because it certainly was not that, but with the suggestion thrown out by the Secretary of State in Committee. He then suggested, it will be remembered, first of all, that British India would resent a permanent dictatorship and that the Federal States would resent seeing their constitution abrogated and the dictatorial powers asked for purposes outside the Federal Government by the Governor-General. We all agreed to that, but, driven by the logic of these facts, the Secretary of State then made the following most important suggestion. He said:
First of all, I have to look into it with a view to Parliament keeping a check on any renewal, and also from the point of view of whether it is wisest to say that after a period of years, say three years—1 suggest that as possible—the Constitution should lapse—the whole constitution, for I cannot conceive myself either British India or the Indian States resting content with what really would be a permanent system in place of Federation; nor can I conceive that the Imperial Parliament here would possibly allow a situation of that kind to continue. I think it may be well to put some such term into the Bill.
That statement caused a, very great deal of satisfaction to all my friends in this House, and also to the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Colonel Wedgwood), because here we saw a possibility, if this breakdown continued for the period suggested, of escape both for the Princes and the peoples of India from permanent entanglement in this reform
scheme. These words, which the Secretary of State then indicated were open for his consideration, mean, if I understand them correctly, that if a breakdown took place the whole experiment would be abandoned.

The SECRETARY of STATE, for INDIA (Sir Samuel Hoare): If my hon. and gallant Friend will read a little further he will see a fuller explanation, which I gave of these few words.

Sir H.CROFT: I will read the next paragraph to the end.

Sir S. HOARE: Just before the end of the Debate.

Sir H. CROFT: His concluding words were:
I will look into this question again from those two points of view. I think can find means of satisfying both of them. This has been the happiest day in Committee.''—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 13th March, 1935; col. 461, Vol. 299.].

Sir S. HOARE: My hon. and gallant Friend will see that I spoke again just at the end of the Debate.

Sir H. CROFT: I will come to that in a moment. I had intended specifically to refer to it, because it would not be fair to the right hon. Gentleman not to do so. Some of us have from time to time urged this House to consider the real danger of some such breakdown for which this Clause provides, and we have not been satisfied that the machinery set up in the Bill is adequate to deal with such a situation. I would like to recall the words of the late Lord Birkenhead contemplating a similar situation, for whatever the views of Members of this House may be of principles enunciated by Lord Birkenhead, I think that everybody will agree that he was a realist in politics. He said in his last essay:
I am deeply alarmed lest a great lack of experience may not he preparing for us and the Empire a tragedy of inconceivable magnitude.
This Clause provides for such a break- down, and, if the new Amendment which is now on the Paper is carried out in the spirit of the first speech of the Secretary of State to which I have referred, I should most certainly be glad to accept it, while protesting that it is a deplorable fact that we have to contemplate even the possibility of a breakdown and asserting that we would very much have
preferred to proceed step by Step in the Provinces instead of going right ahead with the Federal solution. I cannot, however, discuss that question because the Government have decided otherwise, and, quite rightly, have provided this breakdown Clause. They did not adopt the original suggestion of the Secretary of State of the 13th March. The right hon. Gentleman intervened later in the Debate to the extent of giving his assent to the remarks of the hon. Member for Doncaster (Mr. Molson), who rose at 7.30 p.m., about 15 minutes after the Secretary of State's first speech, and said:
Do I understand that under Ids proposal that a suspension of the Constitution of this Bill, because of a crisis or emergency, is to endure for a maximum period of time, however many Addresses are voted by Parliament, and that after the lapse of that time either the Federal Constitution under the Bill comes into operation again or there will have to be new legislation dealing with the whole question.
Sir S HOARE indicated assent."— [OFFICIAL RETORT, 13th March, 1935; col. 467, Vol. 299.]
That means that the right hon. Gentleman assented to the quite contradictory suggestion from the hon. Member for Doncaster. It seems to me that if the Federal Constitution under the Bill comes into operation again as suggested by the hon. Member for Doncaster it clearly does not square with the Secretary of State's first statement that after a period of years, say, three years, the whole Constitution would lapse.
I think I have said enough to show that this matter is a serious one for the consideration of the House, and that I shall be exonerated for having carried the discussion over until to-day, because it is a matter which requires a little further elucidation. Surely, the first thoughts of the Secretary of State were the wiser, before he was lured by the hon. Member for Doncaster into assenting to what I submit would be an absurdity in the Bill. I suggest to the Secretary of State that if this Amendment is to stand as it appears on the Order Paper, it becomes something which is almost unthinkable. It should not go into the Bill, for it is impossible in the circumstances envisaged that after three years breakdown the Federation should be carried on in accordance with the other provisions of the Act as if nothing had happened. The Secretary of State's first suggestions were clearly wise, that the whole Constitution
should lapse. If the Constitution has completely broken down, it is impossible that the wreckage of that Constitution should be suddenly brought into operation again. Would not the honest course for the House to adopt be to say that the Constitution will lapse unless Parliament in the meantime has passed amending legislation? That would be understandable.
I should like to ask one or two plain, blunt questions. Do the Government realise that in the Constitution which this Clause purports to provide, the Governor-General and the Governors will in the meantime have been deprived of what the right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) described as the steel framework of the Civil Service, that rapid Indianisation will have taken place and instead of gradualness and training of subordinates for superior positions, the very instrument on which the Secretary of State relies will have been blunted if not destroyed. Will he not have to ask the Services which have meanwhile passed under Indian administrators to come out of their new environment into which they have been placed and take control of staffs which owe their appointments and draw their pay from Indian Ministers? Is it surprising that distinguished Civil servants in India fear that they will be called in as a breakdown gang?
When difficulties like these are brought before us sentimentally say, "Why raise these questions? Why not wait and see what happens? Have we not waited for goodwill in Ireland? Let us hope for the best." All that talk and paraphernalia to which we are becoming accustomed is indulged in, but the fact is that this Clause forces us to face up to the possible situation, and I submit that you are asking super-men, the Governor-General and the Governors, to exercise powers which they cannot possibly exercise. I would remind the Secretary of State of an opinion which has been expressed in regard to the powers to be exercised by the Governor-General. Let me remind him of the words of one whom I might describe as old faithful, Mr. Jayaker, who has been faithful like Sir Tej Bahadur Sapru, his late teacher. In trying to persuade his colleagues to support these proposals he said:
He deplored the Viceroy's powers as proposed in the later Round Table Conferences, but they did not matter as the Viceroy would have no machinery to give effect to them.
That is what I and my friends have been contending, and that is what is going to happen under the breakdown Clause. Let us before it is too late face up to the perils of the situation. Do not let us insist on Sub-section (4), which imagines a vain thing in the paragraph to which I have referred, namely, that the Indian Constitution having completely broken down you will merely ask Parliament to press the button, and produce resolutions of both Houses and that by such a self-starter the machine can work again, that the personal rule of the Governor-General at the end of three years must cease and that the Constitution will automatically re-start whatever the state of the country. That means for the Secretary of State or his successor conflict with your advisers in India. It is playing into the hands of the extremists and the revolutionaries in India who, as the three years draw to a close, will make the task of the Governor-General very difficult if not impossible. If we are going to declare that at the end of three years we shall revert to the status quo and plan accordingly to meet the lapse of the Constitution, well and good; but failing that I suggest that it is unwise to put any fixed date for the termination or revision of the Constitution, for you thereby make that date the date for revolutionary activities. The extremists will take advantage of the time and will make trouble in India. The Clause as it is proposed to amend it by the insertion of the suggested words is a slipshod piece of make-believe, and I earnestly hope that the Secretary of State will be willing to omit the words:
be carried on in accordance with the other provisions of this Act
and insert the word "lapsed," or something to that effect, in order to carry out his first thoughts on the occasion of the Debate on the 13th March, otherwise we shall be putting something into the Bill which we do not mean and which cannot be carried out.

3.50 p.m.

Mr. RHYS DAVIES: The point that was raised in the previous Debate on this important issue has in our view
been met by the new Clause which the right hon. Gentleman has presented. The possibility of a breakdown in implementing the operation of the Bill when it becomes an Act of Parliament was apprehended first by hon. Members on these benches, but I join issue with the hon. and gallant Member for Bournemouth (Sir H. Croft) on the breakdown problem. He seems to take it for granted that the whole thing will break down—I am not so sure that he would not be rather delighted if it did. Anyway, I take it that whatever may be said in favour or against the Measure it is no use commencing with the fear that there is going to be a breakdown. If, however, you must call in the break-down gang to do repairs consequent upon an accident you do not suspend the whole services of the railway system.

Sir H. CROFT: The Clause does suspend the whole constitution.

Mr. DAVIES: The Clause says that if the Proclamation is issued it is to be reviewed every six months by both Houses of Parliament, and it can be in force on those lines for three years. The right hon. Gentleman has suggested in the new provisions that the two Houses of Parliament in this country might then amend the Act of Parliament which has broken down. The hon. and gallant Member wants the whole regime gone into if there is a breakdown at all. He wants the Act suspended or its operation in India set aside consequent on the breakdown of a single point in the constitution. I am not so much concerned with the point raised by the hon. and gallant Member. During the War we "played Hamlet"with the constitution of this country which had been in operation for centuries. I was rather surprised to hear the hon. and gallant Member using the word "extremists." He seems to think that everybody who disagrees with him falls into that category. There are many people in India who when they read his speeches will regard him as an extremist. As already stated, the point we raised as to the possible breakdown of the Bill and the consequences of that in India has been met by the Secretary of State, and without being unduly obliged to him he has done very much better than we expected.

3.54 p.m.

Mr. MOLSON: The hon. and gallant Member for Bournemouth (Sir H. Croft) has drawn special attention to a question I put to the Secretary of State on the Committee stage with regard to an Amendment moved by the hon. Member for Westhoughton (Mr. Rhys Davies), and rather suggested that my question induced the Secretary of State to change his mind. During the Committee stage there were a number of occasions when I endeavoured to persuade the Secretary of State to change his mind, but I found that once the right hon. Gentleman has made up his mind all the pressure one can bring to bear is ineffective, except when he thinks one is right. The question I put to him on that occasion was only an elaborate paraphrase of what the Secretary of State had himself said in an earlier speech, but because of the misunderstanding, in which I shared, as to what the right hon. Gentleman meant in his opening speech I wanted to be quite clear what the actual meaning was. As I say, the question was only an elaboration of what the right hon. Gentleman had already said, which the hon. and gallant Member will find on column 466:
It occurred to me after I had sat down that I had not made it clear. … We should then"—
That is in the event of a breakdown—
revert to the provisions of this Act, and Parliament then would have to choose between reverting to the provisions of this Act or passing an amending Act."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 13th March, 1935; col. 466, Vol. 299.]
When the Secretary of State spoke on the first occasion it rather seemed as if his intention was that in the event of there being a breakdown of the Constitution there should be a reversion from the whole of the constitutional scheme as contained in the Bill to the present Constitution of India, but in his second speech he made it plain that all he intended was that in the event of a, partial or complete breakdown and the Governor-General exercising dictatorial powers under Clause 45 for a certain period of time, it could not be indefinitely renewed by both Houses of Parliament merely passing a Resolution approving the Proclamation, but that there would have to be a reversion to the general structure set up by the Bill or new legislation. I would point out to the hon. Member for Westhoughton that this proposal does not
contemplate merely a general 'and complete breakdown of the whole Federal Constitution, but also provides for a partial breakdown that, as regards some particular subject or some particular authority, the Railway Board or perhaps some particular area, the powers connected with the particular subject may be suspended during the period approved by this Rouse. I only rose in order to point out that as far as I can see there has been no change of intention and that the Amendment on the Order Paper carries out the intention of the Secretary of State. Where you are setting up a Federal Constitution of this kind, it would be entirely in conflict with the whole Constitution if after A breakdown had taken place it was possible by the means of the breakdown, which may have been engineered, for the Government to be secured in a more irresponsible and dictatorial fashion than it has been at any time since the Regulating Act of 1774.

3.59 p.m.

Duchess of ATHOLL: The hon. Member for Westhoughton (Mr. Rhys Davies) pooh-poohed the idea of any serious breakdown in the constitutional machinery of the Bill being possible. A few years ago there were breakdowns in the machinery set up by the Act of 1919 in more than one province. In Bengal and the Central Provinces the Legislatures refused to provide sufficient salaries for Ministers put in charge of departments, and we had in miniature a breakdown of the constitutional machinery. Therefore, it is obvious that something of the kind might happen. The Government think it is possible or they would not provide for this Clause in their Bill. In legislating for such a tremendous subject as the future government of the sub-continent of India, we should try to fashion a ship which will be able to sail the seas in foul as well as fair weather.
It is clear to me that the amended Clause which the Government propose for meeting this contingency is one which is quite out of keeping with the Preamble of the 1919 Act which they are to keep in being in spite of the proposed repeal of the rest of that Act if this Federation comes into being. The whole spirit of that Preamble is to make any further advance towards self-government in India
depend on the use which is made by Indians of the powers transferred to them. That seems to me a policy which must commend itself to all people of common sense. The Government evidently must appreciate it, or they would not propose to keep it in existence. Yet the Amendment seems to propose the very reverse, and says in effect, that however terrible the chaos may be in India, however clearly it may be seen that the Indian machinery is incapable of working in existing circumstances, however serious a revolutionary agitation may be, at the end of three years the Federation has got to be set up in full again, unless an amending Act is passed by the Imperial Parliament.
We know only too well the difficulty there is sometimes in getting important Acts passed through Parliament at the time desired. I imagine that no Government in this country would be anxious to embark on amending legislation until towards the end of the three-year period. They would not wish to anticipate that at the end of three years order would not be restored. They would, therefore, put it off until late in the three years, and many mischances might occur—electoral mischances, or pressure of legislation urgently needed at home, or continental complications. Any one of those, or other circumstances, might make it very difficult to pass an amending Act in the time. And let it not be forgotten that legislation of that kind might well be controversial, and if there were legislation needed at home many people might ask why they should take up the time of the Imperial Parliament with affairs which, perhaps, they did not understand, or in which the electors did not feel interested as they did in their own domestic matters. Therefore, there does seem to me a very real danger that it might be difficult to get amending legislation through within the three-year period, and, anyhow, the principle seems to be wrong, because it practically says to possible agitators in India that the chances are that they will have a Federal Government restored, however unsuitable it may prove to be, and, therefore, for that reason they will be encouraged to continue agitation and make it difficult for the Imperial Parliament to pass amending legislation.
I suppose that this Amendment is to be put into the Clause in order to try to meet the views of the Princes, because we understand it is one of the Clauses about which they were particularly anxious. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will tell us if this meets their view. If he cannot tell us that, can he tell us whether all the legal advisers of the Princes agree to the Clause as amended? However anxious one may be to meet the anxiety of the Princes—and I and my hon. Friends, I think, have shown abundantly that we are most anxious to meet their legitimate apprehensions—is it fair to plunge India as a whole possibly into the difficulty of working an unsuitable federal machinery because of apprehensions that have been felt before the machinery has been tried out? Therefore, I feel that it would be much better if the wording suggested by my hon. and gallant Friend were adopted, namely, that the constitution would not be restored unless legislation were passed.

4.6 p.m.

Brigadier-General CLIFTON BROWN: The Amendment says:
at the expiration of that period the proclamation shall cease to have effect and the government of the Federation shall be carried on in accordance with the other provisions of this Act.
I do not understand to what "the other provisions of this Act "may refer. I understand that this Amendment refers only to the constitution of the Federal government. I imagine that in case of a breakdown in that government, the provincial governments would go on as heretofore. After three years, if the Governor-General found, while the Provincial Governments were functioning, that the Central Government could be
carried on in accordance with the other provisions of this Act",
what other provisions are there except the Provincial provisions of this Measure, to which I understand this Amendment does not refer? Perhaps my hon. and learned Friend will make it clear that this has nothing to do with Provincial Governments, which would probably go or all the time, and that only the Central Government would have to reorganised. I would like to know what the words I have quoted mean.

4.8 p.m.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL (Sir Donald Somervell): I rise with a feeling of optimism, because I hope I may be able to convince my hon. Friends that the apprehensions expressed are largely due to a misreading of the Amendment. The suggestion that my right hon. Friend has shown some inconsistency is also, I think, due to a misreading of the Amendment. Perhaps I may make a reference to the arguments which were put forward, and which were accepted by my right hon. Friend in regard to putting into the Bill a three years' limit. This Clause is called familiarly "the breakdown Clause," and I think it is right that the vast sub-continent of India should not be governed for an indefinite period under a breakdown Clause, that is, under a Clause which is used for emergency purposes. The effect of the three years' provision is, of course, that if you want to continue some form of government other than the government in this Bill apart from this Clause, then Parliament must legislate. My hon. and gallant Friend read out that part of the Amendment which says that at the end of three years
the government of the Federation shall be carried on in accordance with the other provisions of this Act.
He did not, however, read the following words:
subject to any amendment thereof which Parliament may deem it necessary to make.
Those words are very important, and, obviously, in the case which the hon. and gallant Gentleman has envisaged of the same conditions continuing in India which made it necessary to bring the emergency Clause into operation, it would be the bounden duty of Parliament to see, that although the Clause could not be used beyond three years, Amendments were made to the Bill to enable the proper government to continue. I think my hon. and gallant Friend will see that, as a matter of mere drafting, it is necessary that the Clause should take this form. He suggested that we might insert the word "lapse". Did he mean by "lapse" that the Governor-General's powers under Clause 45 were to continue? If he meant that, it is in direct contradiction to the three years' limitation which, on the whole, I think, is generally accepted by the House.

Sir H. CROFT: The only reason I suggested it—I do not understand the legal phraseology—was that I had in mind what the Secretary of State said when he asked:
Whether it is wisest to say that after a period of years, say three years … the constitution should lapse."—[OFFICIAL, REPORT, 13th March, 1935; col. 461, Vol. 299.].

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: The draftsman has to put in proper legal form the intention as expressed by my right hon. Friend. It is generally admitted that there must be some limitation of time. That is the basis on which we proceed. What will then be the position? The draftsman has got to provide for Parliament not passing an amending Act. If after three years the power of the Governor-General is to come to an end, the draftsman must say what will happen should Parliament, in fact, not legislate. Therefore, the words must be in the Clause that the other statutory provisions shall come in unless Parliament has taken them off the Statute Book and put something in their place. If you are drafting a Clause to remove powers under Clause 45, there must be some words to meet the contingency, no other amending legislation having been passed by Parliament. I can assure my hon. and gallant Friend that there is nothing in the drafting of this Clause which goes back upon, or is inconsistent with, the statement my right hon. Friend made the other day. It is quite obvious that if the conditions should arise—we hope they will not—which make it necessary to fall back on these emergency powers, to continue in force during the whole of the three years, then all that this Amendment effects is that that situation must be met by a Bill which will take any form Parliament may think proper, and cannot be continued by a succession of proclamations.
The Noble Lady, who I am glad to see addressing the House from the same seat, suggested that under this Clause the Constitution would automatically start again at the end of three years. That is really a complete travesty of the effect of an Amendment of this kind. We must, of course, assume that Parliament will do its duty. It is quite incorrect to suggest that the idea of this Amendment is, whatever the position of India may be at the end of the three years, automatically to revert to the old position. In reply to my
hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Newbury (Brigadier-General Brown), it is quite right to say that this proposal does not affect the Provincial part of the Bill. The "other provisions" are the Federal provisions. Now a few words in reply to the question asked by the Noble Lady as to the States. This is a matter on which the States made representations, and very proper representations. They said, "You are asking us to join a Federation in which we have a measure of control through the responsibility at the centre. We do not in the least complain of there being an emergency clause of this kind, but it would not be right that the Federation should be governed under emergency powers by the Governor-General year after year and that we should still be held to our instrument of accession." That is a perfectly fair and proper point. Therefore, if these emergency powers have to be used beyond the three years period one of two things must happen Either conditions are such that Parliament decides that it need not legislate and it is possible to go back to the Bill; or Parliament will decide that it cannot go back to the Federation as it is at present in the Bill.
This Amendment would safeguard the rights of the States in exactly the same way as they are safeguarded in Schedule 2, namely, if in the Amendment which Parliament makes it alters the protective Clauses which affect the States, then their instruments of accession are voided. They need not go out automatically, but they have a right to say, "This is a different Federation." Negotiations will take place, but in the last resort they have the right to say, "In spite of your negotiations this is not the Federation which we joined, and therefore our accession is no longer a valid instrument." The Noble Lady asked my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State whether we had reason to believe that this Amendment met the views of the Princes. We have every reason to believe that it does meet the representations which they made and the views which they put forward. That must not be taken to mean that each individual Prince has said, "This is acceptable to me and I give my final view upon it." That is not the way in which these negotiations are dealt with. But we have every reason to believe that the provisions of this Amendment meet the point put forward
and will be regarded as acceptable by the States and their advisers.

4.20 p.m.

Sir AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: I think that my learned Friend the Solicitor-General has met very fairly the arguments that were addressed to him by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Bournemouth (Sir H. Croft) and by the Noble Lady the Member for Perth and Kinross (Duchess of Atholl). As far as the position of the Princes is concerned, I think that they were entitled to a protection which was not provided in the original Bill and which is provided here, namely, that they should not find themselves voluntarily acceding to Federation on one ground and then be bound to remain in a Federation completely different. I think that their position is saved. The more I think about this matter the more anxious I get. My real interest scarcely lies within the wording of the Amendment, which contemplates a period of difficulty and tension that requires a temporary suspension of the Constitution. If we name so short a period as six months for that, do we give any real chance of the situation altering sufficiently for us to be able to revert to normal at the end of that period? I do not think I ought to say a word more, because I am very much afraid of what Mr. Speaker may say in another moment if I do; but I beg my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, in spite of all the arguments we had in the Joint Select Committee on this subject, to consider whether the six months' period is adequate to give a chance to this Clause to restore the situation, and whether the appeal to Parliament would not be, better made after 12 months than after six months.

4.22 p.m.

Mr. HERBERT WILLIAMS: There seems to be a complete gap in this Clause. A breakdown occurs, a proclamation is issued, it runs for six-monthly periods, and then Sub-section (4) begins to operate. What does Sub-section (4) do? Either we can go back to the full scheme o f Federation, that is to say, partial responsibility at the centre, or we carry on under a scheme which Parliament then shall make. At what stage is Parliament going to pass the Amendment? How long is it going to take to pass a Bill amending an Act when dealing with a
state of emergency? Such a Bill is bound to give rise to the acutest controversy in this country. There will be those who will say, "You are not trusting the Indians," and those who will say, "You trust the Indians too much." Obviously a Bill of that kind, proposing drastic Amendments, would occupy the greater part of a Parliamentary Session, from the date when the Government make up their minds and announce the Bill to the date when the Bill receives the Royal Assent. In other words, if the Government contemplate a three years period they are going to start legislating at the end of two years and three months. There seems to be very grave risks. When Parliament is on the edge of legislating there will be people who will come forward and say, "Do not do it now. The situation is getting better and if you only hold your hands things will be all right in three or four months. "Then we come to a period so close to the expiration of the three years that the opportunity for effective legislation by Parliament is gone, and time is the essence of a contract.
Ou the other hand, this Amendment or the Clause could have a further subsection added to the effect that in the event of the three years period having elapsed, and in the event of Parliament not having had an opportunity to make such amendments as Parliament may desire, there shall come into operation Part 13 of the Act, that is the transitional provisions. They would need some amendment. Take Clause 304. What does it provide? It provides, broadly speaking, that the administration in India is to he carried on during the transitional period as it is carried on to-day, that is autocracy, subject to the modifications which arise from the fact that there is a Legislative Assembly. It is true that the Executive is responsible to that Assembly, but nevertheless that Assembly must of necessity by its actions and debates and power pass laws and refuse to pass laws. The existing Legislative Assembly must act to some extent as part of the administration. Therefore if you provide what I will call the principle of Clause 304, and if it is to operate at the end of the three years period during such time as Parliament may need to pass the further legislation that may be necessary, it seems to me that you provide a watertight scheme; but as this Amendment stands, you may
suddenly find yourself at the end of three years with complete chaos existing in India, and with no power to do anything except to hand back administration to the people who have created the chaos.
I, see that the Secretary of State shakes his head. Let us assume the worst kind of folly, and that for some reason the situation is allowed to drift until the three years are up. Parliament has not legislated because people have said, "Don't do it now and the situation will improve." The three years run out, the power to make proclamations has come to an end, and quite clearly Part 2 of the Act has then to come into operation. It seems to me quite evident that this Amendment is incomplete for the reasons I have given, and also incomplete for the reason indicated by my right hon. Friend the Member for West Birmingham (Sir A. Chamberlain).

4.27 p.m.

Duchess of ATHOLL: My hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General said he had every reason to believe that the Clause as it is proposed to be amended would meet the views of the Princes, but he did not say specifically whether the Princes' legal advisers had agreed to recommend it. I would ask whether all the counsel briefed by the Princes have agreed to it.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: What I said was a perfectly fair answer to the Noble Lady's question. I do not think it is proper to go into the negotiations between the Princes' legal advisers and ourselves.

4.28 p.m.

Mr. CHARLES WILLIAMS: I wish very respectfully to say that all the way through this particular Debate I have had very grave doubts as to the advisability of the period of six months, and very great weight has been added to my doubt by what has been said by my right hon. Friend the Member for West Birmingham (Sir A. Chamberlain). Before the Bill goes to another place would it not be possible for the Government to go into the matter again? It seems perfectly clear that if we have this six months period, and the Constitution goes on for three years, and then there is a reversion to the original Constitution, under the original Constitution the Governor-General again has the power to
make these proclamations. That is as I understand the Bill. It seems only reasonable to ask whether that is the solution of the problem which is in the Government's mind, and whether there is not a definite period at the end of the three years when the Governor-General can again exercise this power. The House has a right to be informed on these points. If you are going back to the Constitution, then within the Constitution itself there are powers and, as far as we can understand this Amendment, it will be possible to use those powers straight away.

Mr. CHURCHILL: I only rise to ask whether the Secretary of State has any observations to make on the question put to him by my right hon. Friend the Member for West Birmingham (Sir A. Chamberlain) about the six months period.

4.31 p.m.

Sir S. HOARE: I can only speak again by leave of the House, but with the permission of the House I accede to my right hon. Friend's suggestion. I do not regard the question of the period of time as a question of principle at all. At the same time, I hesitate to substitute here and now one period for another. Hitherto, in the many discussions that we have had during recent years on these matters we have always assumed that the period should be six months. Six months is the period in the other Clauses of the Bill connected with the ordinances. India is used to the period of six months. Moreover, the representatives of the Princes, with whom we have more than once discussed this Clause, have always assumed that the period would be six months. Therefore, before any change could be made it would be necessary to consult the various interested parties. More than that I could not say to-day. I repeat, that I myself do not regard it as a matter of principle whether the period is six months or 12 months. I do not think I need go further into the questions which have been raised. Let me answer in a single sentence the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for South Croydon (Mr. H. Williams). If there is to be an amending Bill it will not be a Bill of 470 Clauses like the present Measure. It would be perfectly easy to bring in a one Clause Bill and pass it through all its stages, if necessary,
in a single day. I think therefore the anxieties which he has expressed are groundless.

Mr. C. WILLIAMS: May I have an answer to my question?

Amendment agreed to.

CLAUSE 48.—(Appointment of Governor.)

4.33 p.m.

Mr. RAIKES: I beg to move, in page 32, line 11, to leave out from "by," to the end of the sub-section, and to insert:
.the Governor-General by a Commission with the approval of His Majesty.
As the Bill stands, the position is that the Governor of a Province is appointed by His Majesty by a Commission under the Royal Sign Manual. It appears that H a Governor is so appointed there can be no real control or advice from the Centre in regard to his appointment. In fact it means that Parliament is directly appointing the Governor in the Province. We suggest this Amendment in order to bring in the Governor-General and in order that there may still be a measure of advice and control from the Centre. It proposes that the appointment in each case should be made by the Governor-General, thereby bringing in the Centre, instead of having the appointment made directly from Parliament.

4.34 p.m.

Sir BASIL PETO: I beg to second the Amendment.
It seems to be in exact accord with the underlying idea of Federation. The Governor of a Province will be part of the Federation as will be the Governor-General who will be appointed by His Majesty to represent him in India. It seems essential therefore that the duty of appointing Governors should be performed through the Governor-General, so that all the parts of the Federation should be welded together.

4.35 p.m.

Duchess of ATHOLL: I support the Amendment because, if the appointments of Governors were made formally through the Governor-General, it would allow the Central Government to retain some power of supervision and guidance in regard to the Provinces. If original powers are granted to the Provinces from the Crown, there can be no effective power in the Central Government unless it is specially put into the
Bill. This brings out one of the differences which exist between the conception of provincial autonomy held by myself and my friends, and the conception embodied in the Bill. Already, in connection with inquiries into the transferred departments, we have had forcibly stressed the need for more guidance and direction from the Centre than is being given now. The trend of the many representations made by the Linlithgow Commission on Agriculture was to that effect, namely, that there was need for the Central Government to do more in the way of guidance of the Provinces in regard to research and many other matters. That is also the trend of the report of the Committee on Education set up by the Statutory Commission—that more guidance and more information from the Centre was desirable for the various provincial education departments which were meeting with great difficulties and rapidly deteriorating in their work.
The Statutory Commission showed its sense of the importance of those recommendations by itself recommending, in the middle of the second volume of its report, that the Central Government should have more powers, constitutionally, in the transferred sphere than they have at present. When I raised this subject some weeks ago the Secretary of State referred me to some other statement in the Statutory Commission's Report which were, he said, to a different effect, but he did not give us the exact reference in the Report and I have not been able to find it. I have found nothing in the chapter of recommendations at the end of the second volume that conflicts with the recommendation made in the middle of the second volume that the Central Government should have greater powers constitutionally in the transferred sphere than they have at present. I feel that the restoration of efficiency in these transferred departments largely depends on the Central Government baying more power of direction and guidance, or rather, exercising more power of direction and guidance than it exercises at present. At present it has powers but, as far as I can see, does not exercise them. It is because I feel, as I say, that the restoration of efficiency largely depends on the exercise of more power by the Central Government than they
have been exercising recently; because I feel that there is so much inefficiency in these transferred departments and because, if original powers are given to Provincial Governments, it will obviously be very difficult for the Central Government to exercise its powers effectively that I support the Amendment.

4.39 p.m.

Mr. ATTLEE: I am glad to note the reorientation in the views of the Noble Lady since she has decided to cease supporting the present Government. She is now, I understand, supporting a proposition that Governors of Provinces should be appointed by the Governor-General acting on the advice of his ministers. There are no words here to say that it shall be in his discretion. I welcome the Noble Lady's new view of the question of increased responsibility at the Centre. I know the importance which she attaches to efficiency and I understand she thinks that efficiency will be secured by having Provincial Governors appointed on the advice of Indian Ministers rather than by the Crown on the advice of Ministers here. That is a distinct advance. The Amendment may raise certain difficulties in the Federation, but in so far as it gives more responsibility to Indian Ministers I should be glad to support it.

4.40 p.m.

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for INDIA (Mr. Butler): I must resist the temptation to follow the Noble Lady into a general discussion on the relationship between the Centre and the Provinces, a subject in which I know she is deeply interested but I maintain that the case would have been better put by her had she followed up this apparently simple Amendment, 'by a statement on the scores of consequential Amendments which would be necessary to make it operative. To take even Clause 49, I notice that in connection with it there is no consequential Amendment down which would make this Amendment properly operative. Clause 49 says that the executive authority of the Province shall be exercised on behalf of His Majesty by the Governor. There is no reference to the Governor being appointed by the Governor-General. The Amendment on the Order Paper, in the first place, does not achieve the very vast and far-reaching effect which the Noble Lady intends
and in the second place it would mean that her conception of provincial autonomy would be simply non-existent. Our conception of Federation is based upon the idea of autonomous units and as we have frequently explained during these Debates our conception of provincial autonomy is that the Governors should be appointed directly by His Majesty.
This matter has been before the House for some time. The original Explanatory Memorandum set out that the purpose of the present Bill was to resume into the hands of His Majesty all powers hitherto exercisable in or in relation to India by any authority and then to redistribute them to the various authorities set up by the Bill. The consequence of that is seen in the drafting of the Bill. It is regarded as essential that the Governors should be appointed directly by His Majesty. Therefore, without going into all the problems of the relations between the Centre and the Provinces which would arise, in the sense desired by the Noble Lady, from the passage of this Amendment, I can only say that in accordance with our conception of provincial autonomy, which is the genuine autonomy of genuine units, we are unable to accept the Amendment.

4.43 p.m.

Mr. CHURCHILL: There is a great deal of substance in what the Under-Secretary has said and a certain amount of mischievous irony in the remarks which were made from the Front Opposition Bench. I think my hon. Friend the Mover of the Amendment was somewhat oppressed by the fear that the authority of the Governor-General, in day-to-day work, over the Governors of the Provinces in matters in which it will be proper for his authority to be exercised, might be diminished or impaired unless, as it were, their commissions flowed from or through the Governor-General instead of being held directly from the Crown. I am bound to say I do not feel that the proposal in the Bill would have that effect. At present the Governor-General exercises immense influence, apart from legal authority, over the Governors of the Provinces although those Governors are appointed like the Governor-General himself, originally from the central power of the Crown acting on the advice of Ministers responsible to Parliament. Now that an
explanation has been given by the Under-Secretary and in view of the many complicated consequential Amendments which would have to he made in the Bill if we were successful in the Lobby in carrying this change, I feel that my hon. Friend, after the illuminating discussion which has just taken place, should be content to withdraw his Amendment.

Mr. RAI K ES: In view of what has been said by the Government, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

CLAUSE 52.—(Special responsibilities of Governor.)

Mr. BUTLER: I beg to move, in page line 12, after "State," to insert:
and the rights and dignity of the Ruler thereof.
This is a repetition of an Amendment made in the corresponding Federal Clause 12.

Amendment agreed to.

CLAUSE 55.—(Advocate-General for Province.)

The ATTORNEY - GENERAL (Sir Thomas Inskip): I beg to move, in page
35, line 24, after "person," to insert:
being a person qualified to be appointed a judge of a High Court.
This is a repetition of a provision already inserted in the corresponding Federal Clause.

4.47 p.m.

Mr. H. WILLIAMS: I take it that the words of the Amendment refer to Clause 218, Sub-section (3), paragraphs (a), (b), (c), and (d). It seems to me that paragraphs (a), (c), and (d) are good, but we are seeking to describe the qualifications of a learned person to perform, in a Province of India, the same functions as are so well performed here by my right hon. and learned Friend who moved the Amendment, and I do not think, if my right hon. and learned Friend's experience had been 10 years in the Civil Service with three years as a district judge, he would in fact have acquired that knowledge of law which an Attorney-General ought to have. We are here defining the qualifications of an Attorney-General, and it seems to me that they are all right except with regard to para-
graph (b). That it should be possible to appoint a. person who is not a lawyer at all to the high legal post of the chief legal adviser to the Government of a Province seems to me to be a mistake.

4.48 p.m.

Sir S. HOARE: We have discussed this kind of question over and over again. We discussed it in connection with the qualifications of judges, and I thought then that my right hon. and learned Friend gave a complete answer to the question raised by my hon. Friend the Member for South Croydon (Mr. H. Williams). He pointed out then that, the kind of experience acquired by Indian civil servants amply qualified them for judicial posts. Moreover, this is a repetition of a, Clause which we passed in the Federal Chapter, and I hope, therefore, we need not delay longer with this discussion.

Amendment agreed to.

CLAUSE 56.—(Provisions as to police rules.)

4.49 p.m.

Duchess of ATHOLL: I beg to move, in page 35, line 41, to leave out from "his," to the end of the Clause, and to insert:
discretion with respect to that proposal provided that the Governor shall not make, repeal, or amend or approve the making, repeal, or amendment of any rules, regulations, or orders as aforesaid without the previous consent of the Governor-General given by him in his discretion.
Everyone who is familiar with the police evidence laid before the Joint Select Committee will remember what importance witnesses attached to no alteration in the rules regarding their service being made without the consent of the Governor. This Amendment would strengthen Clause 56 in three respects. In the first place, it would make clear that the Governor was to exercise his discretion rather than his individual judgment in the matter. We know that the difference between those two phrases means that "in his discretion" the Governor does not have to consult his Ministers, but if he exercises "his individual judgment" he has to consult his Ministers first, and in a matter of this kind it might be difficult for him in the latter case to make the decision that he felt was best.
The second respect in which the Amendment would strengthen the Clause is that, as the Clause stands, the Governor has
only power to object to an alteration of the rules which would affect the organisation or discipline of the police force. The police committee showed themselves particularly anxious about the retention in full of their present powers. The Clause would give the Governor no power to object to any rule which was going to reduce the existing powers of the police force, and that seems to me a very important respect in which the Amendment would propose to strengthen the Clause. Finally, the Amendment would require
the previous consent of the Governor-General given by him in his discretion
to an alteration of the rules. That again seems important, because the Governor might be in a. very difficult position. We have to remember that, unlike the Governor-General, he has no counsellors whatever to advise him. He is a lone figure with no responsible persons around him at all. Therefore, it may be extremely difficult for him to be fully apprised of everything that is relevant to the matters that may be proposed to him, and it may be very difficult for him to stand up against the pressure of Ministers who may wish to have a rule altered. It seems to me very desirable that in that case there should be the Governor-General behind him.

Sir REGINALD CRADDOCK: I beg to second the Amendment.

4.53 p.m.

Sir S. HOARE: This Amendment is unnecessary in my view, and, if it were inserted, it would be unworkable. It would be quite unworkable for the Governor to have to pass all the alterations and all the police rules. I have never heard the representative of any police association make a demand for such powers, and I wonder if my Noble Friend, if I may still so call her—

Mr. CHURCHILL: Not technically.

Sir S. HOARE: Then I had better substitute the phrase "the Noble Lady." I wonder if the Noble Lady has ever studied these rules. They are encyclopaedic; they go into volumes of hundreds of pages, and it would be totally impossible for a Governor to follow, or to wish to follow alterations in all these innumerable rules, many of which have nothing to do with the morale
or the organisation of the police. Still more impossible would it be for the Governor-General. I suggest to the House that in a case of this kind the Governor ought to be acting on his individual judgment rather than in his discretion. I disagree with the Noble Lady that this is the kind of case in which you should exclude the Ministers. It seems to me to be just the kind of case in which, in the first instance, the Governor, who presumably will be following very closely what is happening in the Provincial Government and will probably be presiding at Ministers' meetings, should have consultation with his Ministers before he takes his final action. I hope the House will not accept the Amendment, therefore.

Duchess of ATHOLL: If the Minister feels that the task of following all the amendments to the rules that might be proposed would be too much for the Governor, and if he feels that any decision should be taken by the Governor after consultation with the Ministers, would he consider widening the existing Clause in order to give the Governor power to object to any alteration of the powers of the police?

Sir S. HOARE: He already has a locus standi in the question of powers as well.

Duchess of ATHOLL: Is the word "powers" included in the word "organisation"?

Amendment negatived.

CLAUSE 58.—(Sources of certain information not to be disclosed.)

4.57 p.m.

Mr. RAIKES: I beg to move, in page 36, line 3.5, after "section," to insert:
or with respect to the operations of persons preparing or attempting to take any action likely to hamper or paralyse the exercise of the executive authority.
My hon. Friends and I consider this Amendment to be one of some importance, because Clause 58, as it stands at present, does not appear to be wide enough to deal with the situation envisaged. The Clause reads:
The Governor in his discretion shall make rules for securing that no records or information relating to the sources from which information has been or may be obtained with respect to the operations of persons committing, or conspiring, preparing, or attempting to commit, such
crimes as are mentioned in the last preceding section, shall be disclosed or given.
These crimes which are covered by the Governor's discretion are merely crimes of violence intended to overthrow the Government. It is quite possible that you may have crimes which are not intended actually to overthrow the Government, but which at the same time may seriously hamper or paralyse the Government in a number of ways. You may very well have persons engaged in some form of crime who do not propose to overthrow the Government, but merely to hamper it until they have got done the things which they are determined to have done. At the present time the Governor-General has no power to prevent the sources of information in regard to such crimes being disclosed. He has been given power with regard to crimes of violence, which presumably the Government fear, and I think rightly fear, that unless that information can be kept secret, no one will ever dare give information to the Governor which will enable him to deal with serious crime. In just the same way persons will never dare deliberately to disclose efforts that are being made by a number of people to stir up trouble if they think their names will come out and they will in consequence get into trouble with those people. We take the view that the present Clause is too narrow, and we ask the Government to consider making it rather wider, in order that all persons who desire to give information to the Governor for the prevention of crime can do so in the sure and certain knowledge that the records will not be disclosed.

5.2 p.m.

Sir B. PETO: I beg to second the Amendment.
I do so with the greatest pleasure, because my hon. Friend below me has made what I think is an unanswerable case. It is clear that one of the objects of these two Clauses, and they are two of the most important in the Bill, is to ensure, generally speaking, the smooth working of the new Constitution and that it shall not be upset by persons trying, for whatever reason, to make the new form of Government unworkable. There is nothing which would make these two Clauses, operating together, wider than by providing that they would still be designed to protect persons who will be assisting
the Government in giving information from having that information disclosed and from getting themselves penalised by people who would object to their plan for wrecking the Government being given away. It seems to me an obvious advantage and, as my hon. Friend has said, the Clause is very limited in its operation. It is limited to information given in the cases contemplated in Clause 57, namely, information as to
committing, or conspiring, preparing or attempting to commit, crimes of violence. …
There are more ways than that of making Government impossible and of wrecking a Government, and it seems to me to be equally important whether it is proposed to upset the Government by bomb and pistol and things of that sort or by other, perhaps less bloodthirsty but equally effective, action. If the Government feel sure of getting information from well-disposed persons who know of any such plans or conspiracies against the Government, and if they are to he protected, it is essential that this should be put in the Bill.

5.4 p.m.

Mr. MOLSON: An Amendment was moved on the Committee stage to omit the words "of violence" in order to extend the protection given to sources of information to crimes which do not fall in the special category of crimes of terrorism. I felt, when I heard the Government reply that they had an extremely good debating answer to the argument we were then putting forward, but, on thinking it over further, I cannot quite see why they should refuse some concessions upon the general lines that have been asked for by my hon. Friend who moved this Amendment. As I understand the position, the Governor has unrestricted powers to do whatever is necessary to discharge his special responsibilities, and I think the Government reply to an Amendment such as that moved by my hon. Friend is that that is an unlimited and unrestricted power to take all such measures as are necessary to maintain peace and tranquility in the Province, and that that is 411 it is necessary to do. Because of the recommendation of the Joint Select Committee with regard to crimes of terrorism, they have introduced an additional Clause which gives, so to speak, a special procedure by which the Governor may
deal with crimes of the kind contained in Clause 57. Clause 58 follows from that, and gives special protection to the sources of information which are dealing with crimes of that kind.
It may be that in the vast majority of cases there would be no need for the source of information to be kept secret, except in cases of crimes of terrorism. For example, in the case of crimes of terrorism, those who are believed to be guilty are frequently not tried in open court, because of the danger of the assassination of witnesses. The Government may say that if the person who is suspected has to be tried in open court the sources of information will come out when the evidence is given. In the second place, they may say that even in the case of the civil disobedience campaign such as those which have on two occasions been launched by Mr. Gandhi, there is not the danger of assassination and therefore there is not the need for keeping the source of information secret. That may be a good argument as far as it goes, but I do not quite understand why a greater discretion should not be given to the Governor-General to maintain the secrecy of sources of information in all cases where he has thought it necessary to exercise his special responsibilities. I see no reason why Clause 58 should not be made coextensive with the exercise of his special powers. I do not see why it should be restricted to those very narrow and limited kinds of crimes which fall under Section 57. I can think of two kinds of crimes in which it might be important that there should be secrecy. In the first place, a crime may not be, nominally at any rate, a crime of violence. My hon. Friend has referred to cases of civil disobedience. There was no intention, we know, that they should lead to violence, but some of the most Appalling tragedies that have happened in India, as the Chauri-Chaura murders, arose directly out of civil disobedience, when there was no intention on the part of Mr. Gandhi, who launched them, that anything of the kind should follow. I can imagine cases of civil disobedience where social boycot might be employed and where, in order to deal with that, it might be of the utmost importance that it should not be
known whence sources of information were derived.
Taking another case, crimes of violence under Clause 57 have to be crimes of violence which, in the opinion of the Governor, are intended to overthrow the Government as by law established. There have been several cases of attempted assassination, as in the case of Mr. Villiers, then president of the European Association, where it would be difficult for the Governor to hold that an Attempt to assassinate the president of the European Association, or, indeed, of anyone who had taken an active part in politics but was not in any way connected with the Government, could be intended to overthrow the Government. I hope that the Government will be prepared to consider the suggestion that has been put forward. I see no logical reason at all why Clause 58 should be narrowly limited to the crimes that fall under Clause 57. We have been told that the safeguarding of law and order depends very largely upon the special responsibilities which are imposed on the Governor, and I should have thought that it would be better for him to be left to act in his discretion in all cases where he thought there was Adequate and sufficient reason; that in all those cases he might exercise the powers contained in this Clause.

5.10 p.m.

Lord EUSTACE, PERCY: The remarks by the hon. Member for Doncaster (Mr. Molson) show very clearly what our difficulties are on this Clause. He has spoken of enlarging the Governor's discretion to make rules in respect of all sorts of crimes in so far as they fall within his special responsibilities. That is not what this Clause does. The whole emphasis of this Clause is on the words "The Governor … shall make rules …" No discretion is left to the Governor at all. The rules he is obliged to make are specifically laid down. That is quite apart from the Governor's power, both under his special responsibilities and, as the hon. Member for Doncaster did not mention, his general powers to make rules. I can see that the Governor ought to have full discretion, even beyond the limits of his special responsibilities, to make rules of business requiring the maintenance of secrecy about certain kinds of police information. The question of paralysing or hampering the executive
Government does not itself in the least exhaust the cases in which the Government ought properly to make rules of business of that kind. You can hardly say that the activity of anti-prohibition gangsters in America a few years ago were designed to hamper or paralyse the executive Government. They were designed to get liquor in with facility. There are many branches of organised crime where it is very important to maintain the secrecy of your informants.
What I want to suggest to the Secretary of State is this It is obvious from the speeches we have heard that there is a general assumption in this House that this Clause, contrary to all the intentions of the Government and of the Joint Select Committee, is being interpreted as limiting the Governor's power to make rules for the secrecy of police information to the particular case where he is statutorily obliged to make such rules. It seems to me that the confusion will only be increased by adding further categories, as is proposed in the Amendment. But if this House has gained that impression, people outside, and the interpreters of this Constitution, may have gained the same impression, and it might be well to preface this Clause with some such words as "Without prejudice to the Governor's powers under his special responsibilities and under his powers to make rules of business." I believe that would cover the case better than would this particular Amendment.

5.14 p.m.

Mr. BUTLER: Throughout the discussions which preceded the discussions in this House—particularly in the Joint Select Committee—these Clauses were thought to be sufficient for achieving the general purpose which, for example, the hon. Member for Doncaster had in mind, that in cases covered by these two Clauses, 57 and 58, the Governor would be able to make definite rules in his discretion—or rather he should make deinite rules in his discretion—for the purpose of safeguarding the sources of information. I gather that the hon. Member for Doncaster requires to be quite sure that the Governor has adequate powers for taking this step when it is absolutely necessary. We considered this matter in Committee and the hon. Member thought that we had a good debating case. I think we have more
than a good debating case. Let us just examine for a moment the operation of the Criminal Intelligence Department which will operate in a normal Indian Province. Information will come in. It is not as if this very important and secret information will be published from the housetops. It will be used for the purposes of the police and of the executive Government, and in normal cases—in every case, one might say—it will be secret information upon which the executive Government will act. It was thought necessary on the Select Committee to insert the special powers which are given by Clause 58 to safeguard the sources of information and to safeguard the lives of the informers. When we came to the drafting, we used these words:
any persons committing, or conspiring, preparing or attempting to commit, crimes of violence which, in the opinion of the Governor, are intended to overthrow the government as by law established.
Those are the types of crime upon which Clause 58, dealing with certain sources of information not to be disclosed, operates. If we examine those words and the criterion of the hon. Member for Doncaster, which is that the Governor should take this special action when he considers it vitally necessary, we consider that the Governor has sufficient power, when he considers it vitally necessary, to take this action of making these rules in his discretion, particularly with regard to the crimes described. The hon. Member for Doncaster referred to certain regrettable attempts made on gentlemen in India and to the danger of the early stages of crime which are not regarded as sufficiently serious to result in the overthrow of the Government by law established, and to the difficulty of not having words which would enable the Governor to use this power in those circumstances. We have looked sympathetically into the point of view which the hon. Member and the hon. Members who moved the Amendment have put forward. We have examined the matter since the Committee stage, and we consider that the words "preparing or attempting to commit" cover the preliminaries of any actions which are likely in the end to result in the overthrow of the Government by law established. The overthrow of the Government is very often the object of anybody who starts in the early days to conspire, and if the
Governor considers that the earliest forms of insurrection, whatever they may be, would result in the undesirable effect of overthrowing the Government by law established—

Mr. CHURCHILL: Overthrowing by unconstitutional means.

Mr. BUTLER: —yes, by crimes of violence—he will be entitled to take the steps suggested in Clause 58.

Sir B. PETO: The words in Clause 57 are limiting. That Clause says,
conspiring, preparing or attempting to commit crimes of violence 
calculated to upset the Government. The Under-Secretary argued as if those words were not there, and as if Clause 58 would apply to cases of
persons committing or conspiring, preparing or attempting to commit, crimes
of any sort or do anything which in the opinion of the Governor was liable to upset the Government.

Mr. BUTLER: The hon. Baronet may rest assured that I had no intention of giving the impression that the meaning of the Bill is any different from that which appears on the face of it, because I know, from my long experience of the hon. Baronet, that he would have pointed it out if I had attempted to deceive him. If in the early stages of the preparation of these types of crime of violence the Governor can destroy an ultimate danger to the Government through such crimes, it will be possible for him to take the steps which are mentioned in Clause 58. We consider, therefore, that, if the Governor considers there is any danger or if any particular activity is likely to result in this undesirable end, he has power to take the necessary action. We therefore think that the interpretation of the wording of Clause 57 and the operation upon it of Clause 58 give the Governor in his discretion the powers necessary, provided he interprets them in the way in which we confidently expect he will.

5.20 p.m.

Mr. MOLSON: I am impressed by the argument which the Under-Secretary has put forward, but he has not said whether he accepts the argument put forward by the Noble Lord the Member for Hastings (Lord E. Percy). The Noble Lord said
that in the case of crime which fell under Clause 57 it is mandatory upon the Governor to keep the sources of information secret, and that he has discretionary power to make rules of business.

Mr. DEPUTY - SPEAKER (Captain Bourne): I would remind the hon. Member that we are not in Committee and that he can only ask a question and not make a speech.

Mr. MOLSON: May I ask whether the Governor has the discretionary power to make rules preserving secrecy with regard to other crimes not included in Clause 57?

Mr. BUTLER indicated assent.

5.21 p.m.

Mr. CHURCHILL: On this Clause we are proceeding upon a very broad basis of general agreement. Everyone in all parties is agreed, I think, however they may differ in other respects, that we could not possibly trust the responsible Indian Ministers, who are to have so much power under this Bill, with the knowledge of the names of the secret agents who furnish the executive Government with the means of protecting themselves against terroristic and other activities. The fact that we have this agreement is a very remarkable commentary upon the whole structure and character of this legislation. It is not my purpose to emphasise that now, for if we are agreed there is no need to batter in an open door. The only question is whether the words suggested by the Government may not in some way obstruct their own purpose. From that point of view the misgivings of the hon. Member for Doncaster (Mr. Molson), reinforced as they have been by the Noble Lord the Member for Hastings (Lord E. Percy)—I do not know whether there is any hope of a death bed repentance on the part of these two faithful supporters of the Government—their misgivings certainly appear to fall in with the views of my hon. Friends that the words that have been chosen by the Government have a narrowing effect. If they have, surely it would be appropriate to insert here or there the necessary Amendments to give effect to the purpose of the Government and the House, whether it be by the preambulatory words of my Noble Friend or by the
actual Amendment that has been moved, or by both, for they both seem to have a valid purpose. I trust that the Government will have this matter considered if it is raised in another place.
The object of Clause 58 is to protect the Agents who discharge an enormously important duty. These agents, whose fathers sometimes were agents, and who hold an office which is almost hereditary, are buried in the depths of the vast population of India, and give the timely information without which the lives of the white inhabitants would very soon be reduced to a lamentable state of danger. It is dangerous to disclose the names of the agents. That is what the Clause seeks to provide, and that is why it seems to me that to limit the application of the Clause to crimes of violence, or to seem to do so, may lead to an agent's name being revealed to a responsible Indian provincial minister in connection with some crime of a menial character of which he has given information. Then, owing to the fact that for the first time it is known that this man is a police spy, owing to the fact being known that he is a secret service agent of the Government, it will be easy for the responsible Indian minister to draw deductions. The mere fact that such a man was in contact with the police and was giving information to the police, even only on a most innocent form of conduct—and very often information will come into their possession covering small crimes—the mere fact that he is known to be on the list may be fatal to his life and to the entire system of police government which we are still endeavouring to preserve when so much has been cast away, and which is the main security against terroristic violence. Therefore, I hope the Government will, in a matter on which we all agree, take the necessary steps to make clear that the Governor of a Province will be expected to protect the secret agents of the State from the disclosure of their names to the responsible minister. I am certain that that should not depend on whether the crime in question is a crime of violence or actually levying war on the King Emperor, or whether it is only a smaller offence. It would only be prudent and would only give effect to what the Government have in mind, if the wording of this Clause were made so that no one could fall into the impression, which has been
so general in the House this afternoon, that the words exercise a narrowing and limiting effect.

5.27 p.m.

Mr. MORGAN JONES: I hope that those who read the right hon. Gentleman's speech, in which he indicated his belief that there was general agreement in all parties in regard to what he has said, will not deduce that he spoke for the Labour party. For myself, I repeat what I have often ventured to say, even before this Bill came before the House. I have the utmost repulsion and repugnance against the whole system of police spying. I am not going to argue whether the system is fair, but it is obvious that it plays a big part in connection with the Government of India. The point raised in this Clause is the measure of protection that should be given to informers. A system such as this is capable of the most wicked abuse, for it is possible, so long as you give this complete protection to the informer, for innocent people to be landed in the most dire penalties. Under a police system of this sort, once you guarantee to the informer that under no consideration will the source of his information be disclosed, the person denounced has his chance of adequate defence largely taken away from him. He does not know who accuses him. All he knows is that a statement has been made by someone against him.
I am not at all concerned to defend people who seek to overthrow the Government by violence. That is not my intention because on that we would all obviously be agreed; but I do say that when a person is accused of an offence he is entitled to be judged as innocent until he is proved guilty, and he cannot prove himself innocent or cannot prepare his defence adequately unless he is able to know the source of the information against him. If he has the source of the information, he may know something of the impulses that led to the information being deposited against him. The argument is not entirely one-sided. A person accused of a serious offence is surely entitled to access to all the information regarding who it is that accuses him. I leave that one one side, and come to the phraseology of the Amendment itself. It is framed in the most general terms. It is enough only to prove that
someone is "preparing." What is the definition of preparation? It is a wide term to use. Then there is the word "attempting "and also the phrase "likely to hamper." I suppose it could be said that the right hon. Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill) and his friends have been hampering the work of the Government in the last six months or so.

Mr. CHURCHILL: We have been acting constitutionally.

Mr. JONES: But the word "constitutional" is not in this Amendment, and "hampering" is capable of a pretty broad interpretation. I submit to the right hon. Gentleman that, however much he may desire safeguards against the kind of crime he has in mind, the phraseology of the Amendment is much too wide for the purpose, and is capable of being applied in a way that would be frightfully unjust and unfair and would, indeed, hamper—if I may use the word myself—the legitimate rights of people as citizens. After all, we are not unacquainted with the way in which such words, whatever the intentions of those who propose them, can be most grossly abused once they have become portions of an Act of Parliament by the illegitimate extension of them to cover offences which are really nothing more, perhaps, than an unwise exercise of citizen rights. I hope, therefore, that those who propose this Amendment will not press it, because it is much too wide to justify it being incorporated in an Act of Parliament.

5.33 p.m.

Sir S. HOARE: It is well that the House should take into account both sides of this question. On the one hand, we all have a natural prejudice against arrests or preventive action being taken without the accused knowing the sources of the charge. That kind of practice we have condemned, and rightly condemned, in not a few countries of the world at the present time. I have every sympathy with that point of view, but we must remember that in India for many years past—I wish it were not so—we have been faced with the insidious attacks of terrorists. That being so, it is essential that there should exist an efficient secret service if we are to protect the lives not only of British officials and British public men but
Indian officials and Indian public men, and it is essential that the sources of information that the Governments in India receive should remain intact. I think there was general agreement in the Joint Select Committee that it is essential that we should safeguard the sources of this very secret information, but the Joint Select Committee did not take the view expressed by my right hon. Friend the Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill) that you cannot trust Indian Ministers. I dissociate myself entirely from that view. I believe that in course of time we shall see Indian Ministers as resolute as anyone, British or Indian, to
suppress terrorism. The Joint Select Committee made their recommendations, not because they distrusted Indian Ministers, but because they wished to see carried out in India the convention that actually exists in this country. H it is a sign that Indian Ministers are not to be trusted that they are not given the sources of secret information, it is also a sign that British Ministers are not to be trusted, for that is the actual practice here. I challenge my right hon. Friend to contradict me. Ministers do not ask for the sources of secret information. They take it from their expert advisers.

Mr. CHURCHILL: Does my right hon. Friend suggest that if the Home Secretary, His Majesty's principal Secretary of State, desired to know any fact connected with the working of the Criminal Investigation Department, or anything connected with the agents employed, he would not, under his authority, immediately be informed?

Sir S. HOARE: My right hon. Friend did not listen to what I said. I was speaking of the convention that exists under which Ministers do not ask for this information. It is a question of convention. The Joint Select Committee made this recommendation because they wished to see carried out in India the convention that exists here. They did not make this recommendation because they distrusted Indian Ministers.

Mr. CHURCHILL: Surely my right hon. Friend is aware that the Home Secretary, for instance, is responsible to the Crown and Parliament for all the duties of his office, and although in the great majority of cases no need arises for him to look into the agents below the
chief of the police, if he had reason to think there was any such need, his powers are ample, and no convention that the need had not till then arisen would prevent him from exercising that power.

Sir S. HOARE: I am not denying that his constitutional power is ample, but I am pointing out that the convention exists here, and the Joint Select Committee wished to see that convention set up in India. In this case, as in many cases, we have had to give in the case of India statutory form to what has grown up as a convention in this country. That is the main recommendation of the Joint Select Committee. Let me refer to the suggestion made by my Noble Friend the Member for Hastings (Lord E. Percy). Not for the first time—and not for the last time—his interpretation of the Bill is the correct interpretation. This Clause makes certain actions mandatory in the case of crimes likely to lead to the overturning of the Government, but does not in. any way impinge on the Governor-General's other powers or the Governor's other powers either in the field of his special responsibilities or under the other provisions of the Bill under which he can make rules of business. I will, certainly, therefore, look into the question raised by my Noble Friend as to whether it would be wise to make that point clear at the beginning of the Clause. As I say, it makes no difference to the substance of the Bill at all, and if there is no drafting difficulty that cannot be overcome, I will certainly see whether a change of that kind cannot be made in another place.

5.39 p.m.

Duchess of ATHOLL: My right hon. Friend the Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill) has assured the House out of his experience as Home Secretary that a Home Secretary has the constitutional right to ask for the sources of any secret information that has been supplied to his office, but I would point out that over and above that the Clause requires the whole records of information—not merely the source of the information, but the whole of the information—to be withheld from any person except those authorised by the Governor or, within the police force, by the Inspector-General of Police. The Clause says:
The Governor in his discretion shall make rules for securing that no records or
information relating to the sources from which information has been or may may be obtained … shall be disclosed or given.
That seems to go further than the mere withholding of the source. In any case, we have the assurance of my right hon. Friend the Member for Epping, out of his experience, that that is not a convention which necessarily obtains in this country. The Under-Secretary spoke as if it would be quite easy for a Governor to know when preparations were being made for crimes of violence. I think that point was very well answered by the hon. Member for Doncaster (Mr. Molson), who pointed out that though the non co-operation movement started by Mr. Gandhi in 1921 was at the outset a perfectly peaceful movement, it ended in a terrible tragedy at Chauri-chaura. Or if anyone had believed that Gandhi's march to the coast, in the early months of 1930, would have ended in the tragedy of Sholapur, no Governor-General could possibly have allowed the march. We should be crediting Governors with a good deal more foresight than they usually possess if we suppose that they would know that a movement, which apparently starts in a non-violent manner, may even in a country such as India, where violent passions can be easily aroused, end in violence. Out of the very small experience I have had in this matter I have been very much impressed with how easily an Indian may be intimidated or prevented in some way or other from saying what he really thinks. The fetters of community, caste and social customs make it infinitely more difficult for people to speak freely in that country than here, and something much less than the fear of assassination which arises in connection with crimes of revolutionary violence may make it difficult for people to give information which it is desirable that the Government should have in the case of civil disobedience or riots or cases of that kind which appear to stop short of revolutionary crimes of violence. In the civil disobedience movement a 'very common form of attempting to intimidate the police was to have a mock funeral outside a policeman's house. That was found to have so great an effect on the nerves of some policemen that an ordinance had to be passed making mock funerals illegal. If we realised how some persons in India can be intimidated in a way that is not possible here, we should
feel it necessary to give all the protection possible in connection with this matter, and I think it is desirable that the terms of the Clause should be widened.

5.45 p.m.

Mr. BAILEY: One listened with a good deal of interest to the arguments of the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Morgan Jones).He suggested that, as the Clause is constituted, it would be a threat to the liberty of the subject, and he was fearful of the difficult position in which persons would be placed who were accused of crimes of violence. The Minister, although he did not go to that extent, seemed to say that the question was one of drawing a balance between the rights of the subject on the one hand and the necessities of the situation on the other. With great respect, I am bound to say that, unless I misunderstand the Clause, the question of the liberty of the subject is not involved in it. Even in this country, persons accused of offences are not informed, as far as I know, who has laid the charge against them. When a man is accused in this country the police officer makes a charge and says "Whatever you say will be taken down in writing and may be used in evidence against you," but he certainly would not answer a question such as "Who has told you about this?" It is only when the accused person gets to court that the evidence is heard, and the man has a right to cross-examine upon whatever evidence is put in in open court. He has no right to the prior investigation of the evidence against him. The Clause does not deal with the question of the evidence which is brought against the person before he is convicted, but only with the secret source of the information which has come to the knowledge of the Governor. Before a man could be convicted upon such information, his offence would have to be proved to the court.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: The hon. Member is now getting very far away from the question.

Mr. BAILEY: I will not pursue the point, after your Ruling, but the question of a threat to the liberty of the subject formed the whole burden of the speech of the hon. Member for Caerphilly against our Amendment, and I was trying
to show that his fears of the effect upon the liberty of the subject were not wellgrounded. I will not further follow the hon. Member's argument. The extension which we propose to the Clause seems necessary. The difficulty was stated very clearly by my right hon. Friend the Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill), and it is that the system of espionage will be useless if offenders know who has spied upon them. One might not like to contemplate the necessity for a system of espionage, but there it is; it is obviously necessary at the present time. If it were known upon whom the police relied for information in regard to minor offences, the value of such persons would be very slight. It is essential that their identity should not be disclosed.
That is one of the main reasons why the Clause seems not to go far enough. It is difficult to see how far it does go. What do the words "preparing, or attempting to commit" mean? Suppose some action were taken which was not intended to lead to violence, but which might incite other people to violence; would that come within the Clause or within our Amendment? It is difficult to say. In his very lucid observations, the Under-Secretary of State said that if the Governor-General dealt with the matter, he confidently anticipated that everything would be all right. Ought we to leave the matter in that way, dependent upon the interpretation of the Governor-General? Ought not a point of this importance be absolutely covered, so that it would not need the exercise of the art of interpretation? There is a great deal of difficulty in this matter. One hon. Member may say that it seems clear, but obviously my Noble Friend the right hon. Member for Hastings (Lord E. Percy) felt there was a difficulty, and the hon. Member for Doncaster (Mr. Molson) felt anxious about the position. Their minds were not satisfied. Neither of them is anxious to cast doubts upon the wisdom of the Clause, but if there are doubts in their minds as well as in ours, that may constitute a prima facie case that the doubts are valid. It may well be that this discussion will therefore not be the last word on this subject before the Bill passes into law. Would it not be wise to redraft the Clause in such a form that no possible mistake could be made as to the meaning of the law?
The Minister has made a concession. He said that he would consider the question, without prejudice to the other rights of the Governor-General. That is a very valuable concession, for which we are very grateful, but I do not think it goes to the root of the problem. One of the difficulties is that, under his special powers, the type of information the disclosure of which the Governor-General will have the right to prevent is just that which is dealt with in Clause 57, and minor things, the disclosure of which it might also be very important to prevent, might not come under his special responsibilities. It might be very important that a certain piece of information should not be disclosed lest a particular spy should cease to have any value, and that the case was not covered by the special responsibility in regard to a threat to tranquillity, because that would be straining the law too far. At the same time it might be the sort of case where the Governor-General should have power to act. To put the major rules and regulations, dealing with crimes of violence into a special Clause and leave all minor crimes to come in under a special responsibility, where they ought not to come in seems a most unsatisfactory method of dealing with the problem. It is straining the meaning of the Bill to put them in there, because the special responsibilities are intended to deal with an emergency, or something likely to threaten a great emergency. It would be a complete travesty to force the interpretation to mean that the Governor-General could prevent a particular piece of information being disclosed, because to act otherwise might lead to something which in turn might lead to something, and in 20 years a secret might be known. The special responsibilities are clearly intended to deal with present emergencies to the Constitution, and not with minor matters.
The hon. Gentleman said something about our showing a lack of trust in Indian Ministers, but if the Government have complete confidence in Indian Ministers, why have they put in this Clause? Lack of confidence in Indian Ministers applies just as much to refusing to disclose minor matters as it does to major matters. The Government show confidence in one direction but not in the other. It may be difficult to say, until the Indian Ministers have been
tried, to what extent they may be trusted, but one hopes that they will rise to their responsibility. The Clause has been put into the Bill to guard against the danger of their failing to rise to that responsibility. It is no use putting forward the argument about trusting the Ministers. If the Government had faith in them they would not have put in this Clause. The Clause is far from sufficient to provide an adequate safeguard.
It is very regrettable that spying is needed in any country, but whether we rule India, whether the Indians take over, or whether there be something between the two, it cannot be denied that terrorism will exist to an extent which is entirely unknown in this country or in any other Western country, and it will be necessary to have some system of espionage to track terrorism to its source. Otherwise, lawful government will become completely undermined. We have to accept a system of espionage in order to deal with the greater evil of terrorism. Is it not our duty to see that the persons who are to be placed in the extremely difficult position of dealing with terrorism are provided with the maximum of security, rather than the minimum provided by the Clause? I would appeal to my right hon. Friend to go further into this matter than he has already done. It would be so much more convenient for the Governor-General to have discretion in these matters and for the whole subject to be dealt with in one Clause, rather than major rights and the exercise of responsibilities in one place and a further Clause dealing with minor matters somewhere else. The Clause raises very grave and important questions which may at any time assume a greater gravity than at present. I would, therefore, ask my right hon. Friend to examine the position afresh, between now and when we shall have the last opportunity of making any amendment on the lines that we suggest.

Mr. LENNOX-BOYD: Might I ask the Under-Secretary of State a question which perhaps he will find time to answer? It is whether the Government might be prepared to omit the words "of violence" in line 5 of the Clause, because that would go far to meet many of our objections?

Amendment negatived.

CLAUSE 59.—(Conduct of business of Provincial Government.)

Amendment made In page 37, line 9, leave out "the making thereof was not duly authorised," and insert:
it is not an order or instrument made or executed by the Governor."—[The Solicitor-General.]

5.58 p.m.

Major General Sir ALFRED KNOX: I beg to move, in page 37, line 30, at the end, to insert:
(6) The Governor General may in his discretion direct that any rules made under this Section shall not be altered without his previous consent given by him in his discretion.
All the safeguards in the Bill depend upon the character and personality of the Governor-General and of the Governors. The rules in the Clause providing, in certain contingencies, for direct access to the Governor, are so important that we think it possible that some Governors, not so strong in character as others, might be induced, under pressure and in order to get a quiet life during their governorship, to give way and to let the rules lapse. We think, therefore, that the rules would be safer if the Governor-General had an over-riding power to see that they were carried into effect. When the Bill is passed into law, the Secretary of State will have to select supermen to go out as Governors, and a super-superman to go out as Governor-General. We cannot always control what is taking place in each Province, and if we, in the Imperial Parliament, have some say in what is happening at the Centre in India, we may in this way control it. We think that in the public interest it would be better that the Governor-General should have a certain power of discretion to control the acts of the Governor in this respect.

6.0 p.m.

Mr. C. WILLIAMS: I beg to second the Amendment.
I think that the Government, in view of the discretion which they are now displaying, should accept this Amendment. Since the Clause deals with the making of rules, it would be childish if, when rules had been made, they could just be allowed to lapse, and in these circumstances, and in view of the argument of my hon. and gallant Friend, I feel sure it is not necessary for me to try at any
length to persuade the Government to accept the Amendment. Clearly you cannot have rules made by someone in a position of great responsibility and then just allow them to lapse. Such a provision as is proposed in the Amendment would meet the case, so that, when any such rules were no longer wanted, they could be decently interred in such a way as would meet the very respectable wishes of my right hon. Friend opposite.

6.2 p.m.

Sir S. HOARE: I have no doubt that my hon. Friend the Member for Torquay (Mr. C. Williams) will withdraw his appeal when I point out to him that I do not think he has read either the Clause or the Amendment.

Mr. WILLIAMS: That is a very unjust accusation to make. I have read the Clause very carefully two or three times, and also the Amendment. The Clause appeared to me to be fairly good, but it was quite clear that it needed something more.

Sir S. HOARE: I think that, if my hon. Friend would read it a fourth time, he would understand it better. The Amendment would be quite unworkable. The rules of business cover a mass of details. They differ as between one Province and another, and it would be a waste of time and effort to make it necessay for the Governor-General to give his approval in every case. Why, indeed, should we not trust the provincial Governors in this matter? I see no reason to draw a distinction between them and the Governor-General. If, however, the Governor-General has doubts about any particular rule, or about any particular clause of a rule, he could have it referred to him by the Governor of the Province, and I suppose he could in the last resort give directions to the Governor to have the rule altered. The chain of responsibility is quite clear. There are the Imperial Parliament and the Secretary of State here; there is the Governor-General, and then there is the Governor. It is quite unnecessary to repose in the first instance a power of this kind in the Governor-General, when in practice it would scarcely ever be necessary, and when, in the last resort, he really has it already.

6.5 p.m.

Duchess of ATHOLL: I assure the Secretary of State that I have read the Clause, and because I have done so I realise that Sub-section (4), to which the right hon. Gentleman did not refer, deals with an altogether different matter from mere rules of business, to which he limited himself in his reply. Under Subsection (4) Ministers and Secretaries to Government are required to transmit to the Governor all such information with respect to the business of the provincial government as may involve, or may appear to them likely to involve, any special responsibility of the Governor. That raises a very much more important question than the mere question of business, to which the Secretary of State referred. The special responsibilities of the Governor, as we know, deal in the first instance with the maintenance of the peace and tranquillity of the Province. What matter could be more serious than that? But, although this provision may be in the Bill, it may be very difficult to put it into effect, because a Minister might well feel that, if he reported to the Governor that something connected with the conduct of his Department would involve a special responsibility of the Governor, the Governor might regard it as reflecting on the administration of the Department.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I cannot see how that question is affected by the Amendment which is now before the House.

Duchess of ATHOLL: I was going to say that, if pressure has been put upon the Governor so to amend or weaken a rule that it is no longer effective, there should be a power in the Govern or-General in his discretion to see that the rule is not weakened. That seems to me to be a very important matter. In the first place, a Minister might very well hesitate to give to the Governor the necessary information, and a Secretary to Government also may hesitate, because he may feel that, if he takes information to the Governor, it reflects on the administration of the Minister, or the Minister may regard it in that light. Therefore, it seems to me quite possible that pressure might be put upon the Governor to amend a rule in such a way as to make it not so binding on the Minister or Secretary as is really
necessary for the faithful discharge by the Governor of his special responsibility. This Amendment would place behind the Governor the Governor-General, with power to see that the rule is kept effective. I realise that the wording of the Amendment is perhaps rather too wide, and that it would not be necessary to give this power with regard to mere rules of business, but I would ask the Secretary of State if he would consider accepting some Amendment of that kind if it were limited to Sub-section (4).

6.9 p.m.

Sir H.CROFT: This Amendment has been put down largely because we have to contemplate the possibility in the future of Governors being appointed who have only recently arrived in India, who are very inexperienced, having been only for a short time in public life, and are suddenly given very great responsibilities and find themselves in conflict with their ministers. The Governor-General is usually chosen on account of a very long record of public life, but recently we have seen Governors appointed who were of but short experience—who, although we believe them to have great qualities, have been merely private secretaries in this House for a year or two. If they are suddenly called upon to take up the position of a Governor and find themselves in conflict with their ministers soon after their arrival in India, it will be very difficult for them to take that firm line which is anticipated. Would it not be wise, therefore, that in such a case the Governor should have the Governor-General behind him? Again, the Secretary of State is contemplating the possibility of Indian Governors, who may find themselves subjected to very strong pressure from their ministers. Would it not be a protection to them to have the Governor-General standing behind them? We want to strengthen the position as far as we can. Should we not take this opportunity of making it stronger than it appears to be at present?

6.11 p.m.

Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: This is a matter which occupied a good deal of the attention of the Joint Select Committee, and I think the words as they now stand in the Bill meet exactly the recommendation which, after full discussion, the Joint Select Committee made. Hon. Members who have looked at Sub-
section (4) of Clause 59 will have observed that it is a mandatory Sub-section. It says:
The rules shall include provisions requiring ministers and secretaries to Government to transmit to the Governor all such information with respect to the business of the Provincial Government as may be specified in the rules or as the. Governor may otherwise require to be so transmitted, and in particular requiring a minister to bring to the notice of the Governor, and the appropriate secretary to bring to the notice of the minister concerned and of the Governor, any matter under consideration by him which involves, or appears to him likely to involve, any special responsibility of the Governor.
I think it would be a great mistake to introduce the Governor-General into this matter. The Bill provides that the rules shall secure to the inexperienced Governor a warning of any proposed action or legislation which may affect his responsibility. If we had contemplated that every Governor would always be a man of long Indian experience, such a provision might perhaps have been unnecessary. This provision was put in precisely to meet the case of the Governor whose experience of India might be small, and whose attention it might escape, unless the matter were specially brought to his notice, that something which was contemplated might affect his responsibility. Sub-section (4) explicitly places on the Minister the obligation to bring that matter to his notice, and on the Secretary to Government in the appropriate Department to bring it to the notice of the Minister and of the Governor. I venture to think that to interpose the Governor-General as suggested in the Amendment would not strengthen the operation of the Bill, because no Governor can by his action whittle away the statutory obligation which is placed upon him by this Subsection.

Amendment negatived.

CLAUSE 60.—(Constitution of Provincial Legislatures.)

6.13 p.m.

Duchess of ATHOLL: I beg to move, in page 37, line 38, after "Provinces," to insert "Punjab.".

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I must warn the Noble Lady that it has been decided that this Amendment and the next, in the name of the Secretary of State—in
page 37, line 38, to leave out "and Bihar," and insert "Bihar and Assam"—should be discussed together, though, of course, separate Divisions can be taken upon them if necessary.

Sir H. CROFT: On a point of Order. Have we passed from Clause 59?

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: It is not necessary to put the Clause on Report.

Duchess of ATHOLL: The purpose of my Amendment is to ensure that the Legislature of the Punjab, as well as that of other Provinces mentioned, shall consist of two chambers, and the Amendment of the Secretary of State will have a similar effect in the case of Assam. Those who remember the evidence given on behalf of the Chambers of Commerce in India and of the European Association will remember that those bodies, through their representatives, contended with great force in favour of bi-cameral legislatures. It was one of their major recommendations, and I think it is fair to say that it was one of the major conditions under which they were prepared to accept the White Paper Constitution. Speaking as a Conservative, I am accustomed to attach great importance to a bi-cameral constitution, and I understand that it is the accepted policy of the Conservative party to stress the importance of a bicameral constitution in this country. In this country we have been working out a Parliamentary system for something like 700 years; we have enjoyed the benefits of compulsory education for all our people for some two generations; and it might be thought that perhaps we had arrived at such a position of stability in this country that we could have a single-chamber legislature. Emphatically, however, that is not the view held by Members of the party to which I belong, and, therefore, it seems to me to be only right that we should try to secure a similar benefit for India where, as we know, some 80 per cent. of the people are illiterate, and constitutional government is in its infancy, and where things tend to be less stable than in this country. All sorts of movements are witness to the instability of many governments in India, and we know that there can be movements which add very greatly to the difficulty of governments, and tend to make for instability.

Mr. ISAAC FOOT: Will the Noble Lady explain why she is not seeking to extend
the Second Chamber to all Provinces, and why others should be deprived of it?

Duchess of ATHOLL: I am glad to see that the Secretary of State is proposing to extend it to Assam, and I would gladly have seen an Amendment put down in wider terms. I have not had an opportunity of going into the question of the recommendation of the Association of Chambers of Commerce being carried out in all Provinces. I understand that there has been some opposition in the Punjab to these proposals. I heard a reference made to the fact, and I shall be glad if we can be informed of the extent of the opposition. The Punjab is a very important Province which contains many varied elements and one in which there might be considerable difficulty in securing stable government. There are very virile and martial elements in the Punjab, and it is the sort of Province in which you want to be very sure that your government is stable. The other day I was told by someone who, I believe, is well conversant with affairs in that Province, that the Opposition which had shown itself to this proposal was not at all wide, but was extremely limited. That was the information given to me only a week or two ago by someone recently home from India and who, I believe, is a good source of information. The House ought to hear from the Minister the extent of the opposition that has shown itself to the setting up of a second chamber in the Punjab.
When we realise what important Provinces are to be given second chambers under the Bill, it seems strange that the very important Province of the Punjab, situated in a great strategical position, commanding the North-West Frontier of India, or, anyhow, being in the second line on the North-West Frontier of India, should be left out, and the House is entitled to know why it is not thought necessary to provide it with a second chamber. The Secretary of State, no doubt, has reason to believe that there has been opposition to this in the Punjab, and he hesitates to impose a second chamber on this Province against the supposed wishes of a section of the people of the Province, but I think that he must realise by now that he is imposing a constitution as a whole on an India which does not seem at all ready to accept it. If he is proposing
to do that, why need he flinch from embodying in the Constitution a provision for a second chamber, which, I am sure, he must regard as a most desirable part of any constitution, as it is a part of the Constitution of this country, which he would not wish to see sacrificed or limited in any way.

6.20 p.m.

Sir H. CROFT: I beg to second the Amendment.
I would ask the representative of the Government when he replies, whether he can inform the House of the real reason why the Punjab should have been exempted from a second chamber. It is not a new or an unimportant Province, but one of the most important in India. Certainly we have relied upon the Punjab more than upon any other Provinces for its contribution to the Army and so on in years gone by. No doubt the right hon. Gentleman has some good reason, and I think the House is entitled to have it, more especially as he is proposing a second chamber in the case of Assam. Would it not be wiser that we should give this additional protection to the people of the Punjab? Can there be any stronger reason? It is no good telling us that the people of the Punjab do not want a second chamber, for everyone knows that no people in a single Province have been consulted on the question at all, and if they had, it would have been difficult for them to express their views. The only information that we have is that the whole of the Hindus throughout India have declared against reforms, and you cannot say they object. I suppose the truth is that the Secretary of State does not think that he could collect sufficient politically-minded people in the Provinces. I presume that that is the only reason. Logically, you cannot deny to the Punjab or any other Province what is granted to Madras, Bengal or the United Provinces. The House would be interested to hear the real reason why the Punjab is being eliminated.

6.22 p.m.

Lieut.-Colonel Sir WALTER MILES: I understand that it is in order to discuss the question of the Province of Assam, although the Amendment relating to it has not yet been formally moved, and I desire to express to the Secretary of State the thanks of many people in Assam for having given them a second
chamber. I myself have received letters and I have no doubt that the Secretary of State has received 10 letters to every one that I have received. I know that there is a great deal of satisfaction in that Province that a second chamber has been given. It must be remembered, when comparing the Punjab with Assam, that every Province in India differs one from another. You cannot compare the Punjab with Assam, and indeed you could hardly compare Bengal, which touches Assam, with Assam itself. The question of expenses in the Province has been raised. I would compare the people of Assam to the Scots, and the people of Calcutta as being more like the people of London. The people in Assam are extraordinarily economical and thrifty, and though they may not live on oatmeal, at any rate rice and things like that are their principal diet. When you get to Calcutta you see extravagance and opulence and the show of expensive Rolls Royce cars, and race horses. You do not see at Aberdeen what you see at Ascot. It must be remembered that, though Assam at the present moment is small in population, it is very large in area and the population is increasing very fast. Although the population of Scotland goes South, the people remain in Assam because it is one of the few places in India where there is still land to enable the people to extend. Probably the population of Assam will increase faster than that of almost any other Province in India.
Another argument in favour of a second chamber in Assam is that the seat of government is at Shillong, a hill place, about 4, 500 feet up. I can understand that in another place here one does not always see a great attendance of the older members of that House, because London, in spite of the present Minister of Transport and of his regulations, is an extremely dangerous place for old people. Indeed it has been said that life here is only for the quick or the dead, but in Assam there is not a problem of that kind, and people are very glad to escape from the hot weather in the plains, and get among the clear, refreshing breezes of the hill station. Elder statesmen will be very glad indeed of a, second chamber and of an opportunity to get up there, and I am sure that their brains will work very much better in the cooler climate.
I have given some reasons for the establishment of a second chamber in Assam, which is very different from other places in India, where the seat of Government is not a healthy hill station. On behalf of relatives out there, I wish to thank the Secretary of State very much indeed.

6.25 p.m.

Mr. BUTLER: I am sure that the House will have appreciated the reasons which the hon. and gallant Member for Blackburn (Sir W. Smiles) has given for a second chamber in Assam. I think that they will also appreciate the great interest which the hon. Member has himself taken in this subject and the hard work he has put in on behalf of what he regards as the Aberdonian province for the purpose of getting a second chamber. I hope that a second chamber in Assam will have the effect which he desires upon the legislation of the Province, and that it will play its part in the Constitution of that Province. As we are discussing the Amendment in the name of my right hon. Friend, and that moved by my Noble Friend together, I will first deal with Assam. The decision to have a second chamber in Assam has been come to after considerable consideration and discussion. We have decided to insert provisions for a second chamber in Assam owing to the history of this subject in the past, and the further inquiries which we made as a result of the Debate on the Committee stage. On the occasion when I had the privilege of visiting India as a member of the Franchise Committee, we found that the majority of the Assam Franchise Committee favoured a second chamber, and also that a proportion of the Assam Government at that time favoured the establishment of such a Chamber. On 17th December, 1932, the question was debated in the Assam Legislature and the voting was equal, and the President only gave his casting vote against the Second Chamber in order to keep the status quo. That will show the House that there was at that date a substantial amount of opinion in Assam in favour of a second chamber.

Mr. MORGAN JONES: And a substantial amount of opinion against.

Mr. BUTLER: I am coming to that. In that debate, I would point out to the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Morgan Jones), official members and ministers did
not speak or vote, and they voted on nonparty lines, the Hindus and Mohammedans being divided. There was no attempt on the part of the official bloc to influence a decision on this occasion. This shows the House, therefore, without putting it too high, that there is, or that there was on that date, a very substantial amount of opinion in Assam in favour of a second chamber. After our discussion in Committe we referred the matter again to the Assam Government and we found that it can be said that the Assam Government are definitely in favour of a second chamber, and they have told us that there is substantial feeling in favour of a second chamber throughout the whole Province of Assam. The House will therefore realise that we have recently submitted this question to the Assam Government, that they are in favour of a second Chamber, and that they told us there is a substantial body of opinion in favour of a second chamber in that Province. The Government have, therefore, thought it quite reasonable and legitimate to confer the bicameral form of government upon the future Province of Assam.
The history with regard to the Punjab is different from that which I have related in reference to Assam. When the Franchise Committee visited India, they found that the Government of the Punjab were on the whole against a second chamber, and the Provincial Committee in these Provinces expressed no opinion, whereas the Provincial Committee of Assam were definitely in favour of a second chamber. Therefore, we find in the Punjab that there was that feeling against a second chamber. The matter was discussed in 1932 in the Punjab Council, and the proposal to establish 'a second chamber was negatived without a division. That is a definite expression by the Punjab Council against the establishment of a, second chamber. The history of the two cases may therefore be said to be totally different. In Assam the feeling may be said to be in favour of a second chamber, and in the Punjab there is a definite feeling against one. The Government are temperamentally wedded to the bicameral system, whereas hon. Members opposite are temperamentally opposed to it. It would, therefore, not be for me to enter into a discussion of the matter at greater length, but to say that, to take the
example of Assam, we think the establishment of 'a second chamber will provide opportunity for certain people who might otherwise not be in politics to take their part in the politics of the Province; and, further, we think that the effect of a second chamber on the passage of laws through the Legislature will be beneficial and will give opportunity for consideration, for 'amendment and so forth. We consider, there being a substantial amount of opinion in Assam in favour of a second chamber, that it will be wise for Assam to have one. These considerations, however, cannot apply to the Province of the Punjab, where there is not a demand and where we have found that the opinion of the Council is definitely against the establishment of a second chamber.

6.32 p.m.

Mr. RHYS DAVIES: It is very natural that I should rise to say something on this important proposal. I do not know what the experience of the people of India will be in regard to a Second Chamber, but we know our own experience, and we calculate the effect of this Measure by the experience of our own country. The Under-Secretary, who is so well versed and so capable of putting the case, does not seem to have justified the proposal. All the justification that he has put forward for the establishment of a Second Chamber in Assam must, in principle, be in favour of establishing the same sort of institution in the Punjab.

Sir W. SMILES indicated dissent.

Mr. DAVIES: The hon. and gallant Member for Blackburn (Sir W. Smiles) shakes his head. He knows Assam intimately and he has told us that he speaks for a great body of opinion in Assam. I am sure that it will be the last time that any great body of opinion will speak for a Second Chamber in Assam. I have yet to learn of any great body of opinion speaking in favour of a, Second Chamber as it exists in this country. I suppose that the body of opinion in favour of a Second Chamber is the sort of opinion which was expressed by the hon. Member, in that you must have someone to watch the passage of laws through the Lower Chamber. That opinion has been held for generations by certain people in this country who have the idea that the House of Commons should be kept in its proper place.
They cannot trust the Lower Chamber anywhere. That is exactly what is meant by this proposal.
The Under-Secretary failed to put forward any convincing argument that there was a substantial majority of opinion in favour of setting up a Second Chamber in Assam. He said that the voting was equal and that the President gave his vote in favour of the status quo Surely, that is the best argument against setting up a Second Chamber in Assam. The little experience that I have had of work on local authorities has been that where the voting is equal on any occasion the mayor or the chairman always gives his casting vote in favour of the status quo In such circumstances he would be a very insistent person who would say that there was a great body of opinion in favour of something on which there was an equal vote. The Under-Secretary said that there were some people temperamentally in favour of a Second Chamber and others temperamentally against it. Certainly, we object very strongly to this proposal. It seems to me that there is a flaw in it as far as India is concerned. The hon. Member said that there were men in India, who did not like to bother with party politics and that the establishment of a Second Chamber would enable them to be sent to the House of Lords there.

Mr. SPEAKER: This is not the occasion to debate the principle of a second chamber. The argument must be confined to the establishment of a second chamber in Assam and the Punjab.

Mr. DAVIES: I was coming to that, and was trying to prove that if we are to have second chambers in Assam and the Punjab we must find persons who have had experience in the lower House. What do we do in this country I Hon. Members who have served their parties faithfully in this Chamber—

Mr. SPEAKER: That argument does not seem to me to have anything to do with the question of an upper chamber in Assam or the Punjab.

Mr. DAVIES: I cannot see why the Government should decline to establish a second chamber in the Punjab as well as in Assam. If a second chamber is a good and proper institution to establish in one Province, it is a proper institution to establish in another. Despite
what the hon. Member said, I cannot conceive that there is so much difference in the outlook of Assam and the Punjab as to justify the Government in not instituting the same sort of government in the two Provinces. We are not satisfied with the arguments that have been put forward and, unless I am mistaken, we shall be compelled to vote against the Government's proposition.

6.39 p.m.

Mr. ISAAC, FOOT: The only argument to which we can pay attention at this stage is the degree of demand that may exist. Already the Joint Select Committee had extended the number of second chambers as compared with the first recommendations of the White Paper, and that extension was regarded with some apprehension in India. I and my friends will be opposed to the establishment of a second chamber in Assam unless we are satisfied that there is a substantial body of opinion in its favour. If it had remained at the stage described by the Under-Secretary in the Debate that took place in 1932, it would be a very slender basis on which to erect a second chamber. Although there was a strong body of opinion in its favour, there was an equally strong body of opinion against it. I do not attach much importance to the vote of the President, because I expect he was not concerned with the merits of the case.
I understand that there have been inquiries. I do not know what method can be taken now to ascertain public opinion since 1932, but I should like to know whether the Government on the inquiries that they have made during the discussions that have taken place in the Committee stage and since then are satisfied that the larger body of opinion in Assam desires a second chamber. If so, I do not think that it is for this House to oppose it. The argument as to a second chamber in this country does not apply, because the conditions are not in any sense parallel. It is intended that the second chamber in Assam, as elsewhere, shall have a delaying and revising power. Probably the most important question to consider is that in the second chamber in Assam you have your constituency from which has to be elected the representatives on the Council of State. Even if Assam does not get a second chamber, it will have to go through the same
machinery in order to constitute the Electoral College that is to elect members to the Council of State, unless the Government take a wiser line on the question of direct and indirect representation. Even if the Amendment were passed, elections would have to take place in the same constituency in order to secure the Electoral College.
I am not in a position to judge what is the demand in Assam, but I understand that the hon. and gallant Member for Blackburn (Sir W. Smiles), who has had long association with that country, is able to speak with some authority as a result of communications. I have no desire to deny what he said, and if the House is given that assurance, 'I do not think that it is for us, on academic grounds, to refuse what may be asked for by the pepole. The hon. Member for Westhoughton (Mr. Rhys Davies) said that whatever applied to Assam should also apply to the Punjab. Everything in this matter rests upon the local demand, and whereas we are informed that local opinion as far as it can be expressed is in favour of a second chamber in Assam, local opinion in the Punjab has been consistently against a second chamber. I cannot understand how the Noble Lady can ask on that evidence how the local demand can be overruled. She was not able to put forward anything that appeals to those of us who are interested in local conditions or that could be accepted in place of what has been put before us by the Government and the evidence submitted to the Joint Select Committee.

Sir H. CROFT: In view of the statement that the hon. Member made with regard to the provincial legislatures, is he going to act in the same way on the opinions of legislatures with regard to the reforms as a whole as he is in reference to their opinions on the second chambers?

Mr. FOOT: I am anxious to attach the utmost importance to Indian opinion, and if I attempted to reply to the hon. and gallant Member on the point that he has raised Mr. Speaker would rule me out of order. I may, however, have an opportunity on the Third Reading. I do not wish to be lured by the seductive voice of the hon. and gallant Member into saying anything that would be out of order, but I would ask whether the
Noble Lady can set against what has been put before us by the representative of the Government any tangible or substantial evidence of any responsible body or any Parliamentary section in the Punjab that showed a demand for the second chamber which she wishes to see established there?

Duchess of ATHOLL: I did not suggest that the opinion which I quoted was that of a representative body, but I did say that a statement had been made to me by someone who had good sources of information that the opposition to this proposal was much less than had been supposed.

Mr. FOOT: I have no doubt that the Noble Lady is entitled to give the fullest credence to the evidence put before her by the individual to whom she has referred, but she will appreciate the fact that we must weigh the evidence. The evidence was considered by the Joint Select Committee, and by this House, which, indeed, has only the submission of the Government that all along the larger body of opinion in the Punjab has been opposed to the establishment of a second chamber. It would only be inviting criticism, or something like dissatisfaction, if that body of opinion were ignored. I, therefore, propose to support the Government.

6.46 p.m.

Sir A.KNOX: The Under-Secretary of State has based the refusal of the Government to confer the boon of a second chamber on the Punjab because there is a legislative assembly in the Punjab which does not wish it. Equally he proposes to confer the boon of a second chamber on Assam because there is a legislative assembly in Assam which wishes to have a second chamber. If he is so sensitive to the feelings of the legislative assemblies in Assam and the Punjab, why are not the Government equally sensitive to the feelings of the legislative assembly at the Centre, which does not want the reforms which we are now passing?

6.47 p.m.

Sir S, HOARE: I must not be drawn into that field of discussion. The subject is interesting, but it is out of order. Let me put the position as I see it, first of all, in regard to the Punjab. I do not
believe that there is any substantial body of opinion in the Punjab in favour of a second chamber. I am confident that there is very strong and deep-seated feeling against a second chamber. There was a time when some members of one community were in favour of a second chamber in the Punjab, but it is obvious that it was a second chamber which was totally unacceptable to nine-tenths of the other inhabitants. Therefore, I strongly recommend to the House that we should not burn our fingers with what is very inflammable material in the Punjab where the communities are equally balanced, where, on the whole, we have made a satisfactory settlement of the Assembly, and that we had much better leave things as they are and not attempt to impose on the Province an institution, excellent though it may be in theory, and excellent as it is in practice, in the teeth of the overwhelming opposition in that Province. The position is very different in Assam from that in the Punjab. We were always in some doubt as to whether there should be a second chamber in Assam, and I promised on the Committee stage to make a further inquiry. I have made that further inquiry, and find the significant fact that the government of Assam, official and unofficial, are unanimously in favour of a second chamber. They assure me that there is a substantial body over the whole Province in favour a second chamber.

Mr. ISAAC FOOT: As far as they can tell.

Sir S. HOARE: I do not wish to take the House further than I ought. They definitely say that there is a substantial body of feeling over the whole Province in favour of a second Chamber. That, in connection with the fact that two years ago an unofficial vote in the Council was even, weighs the balance slightly in favour of a second Chamber. We have made further inquiries as to the expense and see no reason why a second Chamber of this kind should add materially to the expenditure of a poor Province. Therefore, after this further consideration, I recommend to the House that we should add to the number of provinces which have second Chambers, the Province of Assam.

6.52 p.m.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: Before voting on this question, let me tell the Secretary of State that we entirely agree with him when he comes down on the side of popular feeling, as, for instance, he has in the case of the Punjab. We hope that when the people of this country express their antagonism to a second Chamber that he will not hesitate to support the abolition of the second Chamber. We do not want to rush the Secretary of State, but we advise him that that day is not far distant. All the reasons given by the Secretary of State for refusing to accept the Amendment relating to the Punjab are sound, but when the hon. and gallant Member for Blackburn (Sir W. Smiles) proceeded to compliment the right hon. Gentleman for having conceded a second Chamber to Assam he adduced arguments in favour of the concession the most remarkable I have ever heard in favour of a second Chamber. I have never heard before that it is a distinct advantage to have a second Chamber because a Province happens to be on the top of the hill, and that that is a special reason why it should have a second Chamber. The hon. Member says that because it is cool on the top of Assam they ought to have a second Chamber, and that becauses it is hot on the plains of -the Punjab they ought not to have one. The hon. Member advanced another very peculiar argument in favour of a second Chamber for Assam. He quoted Aberdeen and London as a parallel between Assam and the Punjab. He said that they were S not mean in Assam and although they did live on rice it was their luxury. Because they live on rice and are abstemious they ought to have a second Chamber. I should have thought that the argument was the other way round. If they are abstemious people they do not want a second Chamber. In the Punjab, where they have their Rolla Royce motor cars and things like that, they are not entitled to a second Chamber. They are extraordinary arguments, and I hope that the hon. Member with his comprehensive knowledge will try to produce much better if he wants a second Chamber for Assam.
I thought that the arguments advanced by the hon. Member for Bodmin (Mr. Isaac Foot) were equally curious. As a member of an old party which has always been hostile to the super-imposed
power of a non-elected body, the argument he advanced was that after all there has been a local demand which should be satisfied. Who are we to stand in the way of a recognised local feeling? If that is a logical statement, why give India the Bill at all? If we are to give them a Bill, why not give them what local demand has been asking? The hon. Member cannot select this little part of the Bill, and because there happens to be a local demand from some very small section of the community interpret that as a general demand of the residents of the Province and say that the demand must be satisfied. That is a very remarkable argument from the hon. Member who has given as much time and thought to this question as any hon. Member. If we are to be satisfied before taking any steps that a definite and an urgent local demand has been made, we ought to know whether it is fairly universal and not a demand expressed by.

a parliament elected on a very limited franchise in which SO per cent. of the people are not able to express an opinion at all, before we declare that that demand is the only thing that this House ought to consider. Not one solitary substantial argument has been advanced in favour of a second chamber for Assam, and while we agree in rejecting the Amendment of the Noble Lady in favour of the Punjab we shall, despite the marvellous arguments of the hon. and gallant Member for Blackburn, vote against Assam.

Amendment negatived.

Sir S. HOARE: I beg to move, in page 37, line 38, to leave out "and Bihar, "and insert "Bihar and Assam.".

Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill.".

The House divided: Ayes, 36; Noes, 247.

Division No. 217.]
AYES.
[6.58 p.m.


Adams, D. M.(Poplar, South)
Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Arthur
Rathbone, Eleanor


Attlee, Clement Richard
Grenfell, David Reel (Glamorgan)
Smith, Tom (Normanton)


Banfield, John William
Griffiths, George A. (Yorks, W. Riding)
Strauss, G.R. (Lambeth, North)


Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)
Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Thorne, William James


Cleary, J.J
Grundy, Thomas W.
Tinker, John Joseph


Cove, William G.
Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah


Cripps, Sir Stafford
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
West, F.R


Daggar, George
Lawson, John James
Williams, Dr. John H. (Llanelly)


Devies, David L. (Pontypridd)
Logan, David Gilbert
Williams, Thomas (York, Don Valley)


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)
Wilmot, John


Dobbie, William
Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)



Edwards, Charles
Mainwaring, William Henry
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Gardner, Benjamin Walter
Milner, Major James
Mr. John and Mr. Groves.


NOES


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks., Newb'y)
Denman, Hon. R. D.


Adams, Samuel Vyvyan T. (Leeds, W.)
Buchan-Hepburn, P.G.T
Dickie, John P


Agnew, Lieut.-Com. P. G
Burghley, Lord
Doran, Edward


Albery, Irving James
Butler, Richard Austen
Duckworth, George A. V


Allen, Lt.-Col. J. Sandeman (B'k'nh'd.)
Butt, Sir Alfred
Dugdale, Captain Thomas Lionel


Allen, William(Stoke-on-Trent)
Cadogan, Hon. Edward
Duncan, James A. L. (Kensington, N.)


Allen, Lt.-Col. Sir William (Armagh)
Campbell, Sir Edward Taswell (Brmly)
Ellis, Sir R. Geoffrey


Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S
Campbell, Vice-Admiral G. (Burnley)
Eimley, Viscount


Aide, Sir Robert William
Campbell-Johnston, Malcolm
Emmott, Charles E. G. C.


Assheton, Ralph
Cayzer, Sir Charles (Chester, City)
Emrys-Evant, P.V


Astbury, Lieut.-Com. Frederick Wolfe
Cayzer, Maj. Sir H. R. (P'rtsm'th, S.)
Entwistle, Cyril Fullard


Astor, Viscountess (Plymouth, Sutton)
Cazalet, Thelma(Islington, E.)
Erskine-Bolst, Capt. C. C. (Blk'pool)


Atholl, Duchess of
Cazalet, Capt. V. A. (Chippenham)
Essenhigh, Reginald Clare


Bailey, Eric Alfred George
Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. Sir J. A. (Birm., W.)
Evans, David Owen (Cardigan)


Barclay-Harvey, C. M
Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Edgbaston)
Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst


Beauchamp, Sir Brograve Campbell
Chapman, Sir Samuel (Edinburgh, S.)
Foot, Dingle (Dundee)


Beaumont, M. W. (Bucks., Aylesbury)
Clarke, Frank
Foot, Isaac (Cornwall, Bodmin)


Bennett, Capt. Sir Ernest Nathaniel
Clarry, Reginald George
Fox, Sir Gifford


Bernays, Robert
Cobb, Sir Cyril
Fuller, Captain A. G


Blinded, James
Cook, Thomas A.
Galbraith, James Francis Wallace


Boulton, W. W.
Cooke, Douglas
Ganzoni, Sir John


Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart
Copeland, Ida
George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)


Bower, Commander Robert Tatton
Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.
Glyn, Major Sir Ralph G. C


Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W
Crookshank, Capt. H. C. (Gainsb'ro)
Goff, Sir Park


Bracken, Brendan
Croom-Johnson, R.P
Goldie, Noel B


Braithwaite, J. G. (Hillsborough)
Cross, R. H.
Goodman, Colonel Albert W.


Brass, Captain Sir William
Crossley, A. C
Granville, Edgar


Briscoe, Capt. Richard George
Culverwell, Cyril Tom
Grattan-Doyle, Sir Nicholas


Broadbent, Colonel John
Dalkeith, Earl of
Graves, Marjorie


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Davidson, Rt. Hon, J. C. C.
Grenfell, E. C. (City of London)


Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Davies, Edward C. (Montgomery)
Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro', W.)


Grimston, R.V
Maitland, Adam
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)


Gritten, W. G. Howard
Makins, Brigadier-General Ernest
Russell, R. J. (Eddisbury)


Gunston, Captain D. W.
Mallalieu, Edward Lancelot
Rutherford, John (Edmonton)


Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.
Manningham-Buller, Lt.-Col. Sir M.
Rutherford, Sir John Hugo (Liverp'l)


Hamilton, Sir R. W. (Orkney & Zetl'nd)
Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. B
Salmon, Sir Isidore


Hanbury, Cecil
Mason, Col. Glyn K. (Croydon, N.)
Samuel, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Darwen)


Harris, Sir Percy
Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John
Samuel, M. R. A. (W'ds'wth, Putney)


Hartland, George A.
Mellor, Sir J. S. P.
Sanderson, Sir Frank Barnard


Haslam, Henry (Horncastle)
Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)
Savery, Servington


Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Cuthbert M.
Molson, A. Hugh Eisdale
Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.


Heilgers, Captain F. F. A.
Morris, John Patrick (Salford, N.)
Shute, Colonel Sir John


Hepworth, Joseph
Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh)
Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John


Herbert, Major J. A. (Monmouth)
Morrison, G. A. (Scottish Univer'ties)
Smiles, Lieut.-Col. Sir Walter D.


Herbert, Capt. S. (Abbey Division)
Morrison, William Shepherd
Somervell, Sir Donald


Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.
Muirhead, Lieut.-Colonel A. J.
Southby, Commander Archibald R.J.


Hope, Capt. Hon. A. O. J. (Aston)
Munro, Patrick
Spears, Brigadier-General Edward L.


Hore-Belisha, Leslie
Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.
Spencer, Captain Richard A.


Hornby, Frank
Nicholson, Godfrey (Morpeth)
Spender-Clay, Rt. Hon. Herbert H.


Howitt, Dr. Alfred B.
O'Connor, Terence James
Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Fylde)


Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh
Stanley, Rt. Hon. Oliver (W'morland)


Hudson, Robert Spear (Southport)
Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William G.A.
Stourton, Hon. John J.


Hume, Sir George Hopwood
Orr Ewing, I. L.
Strauss, Edward A.


Hunter, Capt. M. J. (Brigg)
Owen, Major Goronwy
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir Murray F.


Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer
Patrick, Colin M.
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid Hart


Inskip, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas W. H.
Peake, Osbert
Sutclife, Harold


Jackson, Sir Henry (Wandsworth, C.)
Peat, Charles U.
Tate, Mavis Constance


James, Wing-Com. A. W. H.
Penny, Sir George
Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne)


Janner, Barnett
Percy, Lord Eustace
Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Derby)


Joel, Dudley J. Barnato
Perkins, Walter R. D.
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of


Johnstone, Harcourt (S. Shields)
Petherick, M.
Tufnell, Lieut.-Commander R. L.


Jones, Sir G. W. H. (Stoke New'gton)
Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)
Turton, Robert Hugh


Kerr, Lieut.-Col. Charles (Montrose)
Pickthorn, K. W. M.
Wallace, Captain D. E. (Hornsey)


Kerr, Hamilton W.
Pownall, Sir Assheton
Ward, Lt.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)


Keyes, Admiral Sir Roger
Procter, Major Henry Adam
Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Wallsend)


Kirkpatrick, William M.
Pybus, Sir John
Ward, Sarah Adelaide (Cannock)


Knox, Sir Alfred
Radford, E. A.
Warrender, Sir Victor A.G.


Lambert, Rt. Hon. George
Raikes, Henry V. A. M.
Watt, Major George Steven H.


Leech, Dr. J. W.
Ramsay, Capt. A. H. M. (Midlothian)
Wayland, Sir William A.


Leighton, Major B. E. P.
Ramsay, T. B. W. (Western Isles)
Wedderburn, Henry James Scrymgeour-


Lennox-Boyd, A. T.
Ramsbotham, Herwald
Whiteside, Borras Noel H.


Lewis, Oswald
Rankin, Robert
Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)


Lindsay, Noel Ker
Rea, Walter Russell
Williams, Herbert G. (Croydon, S.)


Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip Cunlifie-
Reid, James S. C. (Stirling)
Wilson, Lt. Col. Sir Arnold (Hertf'd)


Llewellin, Major John J.
Reid, William Allan (Derby)
Wilson, Clyde T. (West Toxteth)


Lovat-Fraser, James Alexander
Remer, John R.
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Mabane, William
Rhys, Hon. Charles Arthur U.
Withers, Sir John James


MacAndrew, Major J. O. (Ayr)
Roberts, Aied (Wrexham)
Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton (S'v'noaks)


MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Seaham)
Roberts, Sir Samuel (Ecclesall)
Young, Ernest J. (Middlesbrough, E.)


Macdonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)
Robinson, John Roland



Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)
Ropner, Colonel L.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


McKie, John Hamilton
Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)
Sir Walter Womersley and Major George Davies.


McLean, Major Sir Alan
Rothschild, James A. de



McLean, Dr. W. H. (Tradeston)
Ruggles-Brise, Colonel Sir Edward



Question, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill," put, and agreed to.

CLAUSE 68.—(Vacation of seats.)

7.6 p.m.

Sir S. HOARE: I beg to move, in page 41, line 14, to leave out paragraph (a).
This is a repetition Amendment. We passed a similar Amendment on the corresponding federation Clause, and this makes a, similar provision with regard to the Provinces.

Amendment agreed to.

CLAUSE 69.—(Disqualifications for membership.)

Amendments made: In page 42, line 18, leave out "a period exceeding twelve months," and insert "not less than two years.".

In line 22, at the end, insert.
(f) if, having been nominated as a candidate for the Federal or any Provincial Legislature or having acted as an election agent of any person so nominated, he has failed to lodge a return of election expenses within the time and in the manner required by any Order in Council made under this Act or by any Act of the Federal or the Provincial Legislature, unless five years have elapsed from the date by which the return aught to have been lodged or the Governor acting in his discretion has removed the disqualification:
Provided that a disqualification under paragraph (f) of this Sub-section shall not take effect until the expiration of one month from the date by which the return ought to have been lodged or of such longer period as the Governor acting in his discretion may in any particular case allow."—[Sir S. Hoare.]

CLAUSE 71.—(Privileges, etc., of members.)

Amendments made: In page 43, line 32, leave out from "court, "to the second "or, "in line 35.

Leave out lines 39 to 42, and insert:
(4) Provision may be made by an Act of the Provincial Legislature for the punishment, on conviction before a court, of persons who refuse to give evidence or produce documents before a committee of a Chamber when duly required by the chairman of a committee so to do:
Provided that any such Act shall have effect subject to such rules for regulating the attendance before such committees of persons who are, or have been, in the service of the Crown of India, and safeguarding confidential matter from disclosure, as may be made by the Governor exercising his individual judgment."—[Sir S. Hoare.]

CLAUSE 78.—(Annual financial statement)

Amendments made In page 47, line 27, after "ministers, "insert" and.

In line 29, leave out from "advocate-general, "to the end of the paragraph.—[Sir S. Hoare.]

CLAUSE 82.—(Special provisions as to financial Bills.)

Amendments made In page 49, line 19, leave out "or impost, whether local or general".

In line 21, leave out "authorising," and insert "regulating."—[Sir S. Hoare.]

CLAUSE 84.—(Rules of procedure)

Amendment made in page 51, line 15, leave out "or the ruler thereof."—[Sir S. Hoare.]

7, 10 p.m.

Sir H. CROFT: I beg to move, in page 51, line 27, at the end, to insert:
(ii) the discussion of, or the asking of questions on, any action taken in his discretion by the Governor-General in relation to the affairs of a Governor's Province or a Chief Commissioner's Province.
I hope the Secretary of State will agree to this Amendment, which relates to what seems to me to be an unintentional omission. Clause 38 already prohibits discussion in the Federal chambers of the Governor-General's action in regard to a Province—and the affairs of a, Chief Commissioner's Province will probably not be of as much interest to a Provincial Legislature—but as these affairs are undoubtedly the Governor-General's concern, I suggest that it would be right to prohibit discussion of them also. I think
it may have been an omission that was not intentional, and I shall be glad to hear any reason why these words should not be included.

7.12 p.m.

Mr. H. WILLIAMS: I beg to second the Amendment.
Substantially, the principle behind the Amendment seems to be the right one. In this House, as I understand it, we cannot raise issues which do not come within the purview of some Minister or another. Here is a question which does not come within the control of any Minister responsible to the Assembly. Quite apart from other considerations, as a matter of good order it seems undesirable that we should have Debates on issues for which there can be no Minister on the Government Bench who is responsible. Apart from other aspects such Debates will probably introduce an element of strain if relationships with the Governor-General should be discussed in any way.

7.13 p.m.

Sir S. HOARE: I think that this Amendment is founded on a misinterpretation of what is intended under the Bill. It has never been intended that we should exclude actions taken by the Governor-General or actions taken by the Provincial Governors under their special responsibilities from discussion either in the Central or in the Provincial chambers. We feel—and, I think, quite rightly —that the field of the special responsibilities of the Governor-General and the Governor is so wide—it is not restricted to a few departments, but invades the whole field of government—that we could not possibly make so wide an exclusion of that kind. The provision to which my hon. and gallant Friend alluded in Clause 38 is not in any way intended to stop the Federal Legislature discussing actions of this kind. The object of Clause 38 is to prevent the Federal Legislature discussing actions taken in the Provincial field. That is a very different matter. It would obviously be improper for the Federal Legislature to discuss Provincial questions when the Governor-General had taken action, in his discretion, in the Provincial field. That being so, we could not accept my hon. and gallant Friend's Amendment, which is founded on the assumption that it is desirable to exclude from discussion
altogether in the Provincial field any action taken in the discretion of the Governor-General in this way. I hope I have made the point clear. What we do intend to exclude is discussion in the wrong Chamber.

Mr. H. WILLIAMS: As to this bringing in the question Clause 12, in regard to special responsibility, that is where the Governor-General exercises his individual judgment. Therefore, this cannot apply to cases arising under Clause 12.

Sir S. HOARE: In any case my argument would be the same, that if there is discussion it should take place in the right Chamber.

Amendment negatived.

Sir S. HOARE: I beg to move, in page 51, line 32, at the end, to insert:
or
 (iii) the discussion of, or the asking of questions on, the personal conduct of the Ruler of any Indian State or of a member of the ruling family thereof..

7.17 p.m.

Mr. ATTLEE: I do not see why there is any need to repeat this Clause with regard to the Provinces. The Amendment refers to "a member of the ruling family." There might be an enormous family. There might be the second or third cousins of a ruler. There may be cases where it is thought desirable to ask questions with regard to law and order in a State. Why a member of a ruling family should be allowed to go into a Province and run riot or be seditious or anything else, and no questions are to be asked, I do not know.

7.18 p.m.

Brigadier-General CLIFTON ROWN: I wish to support what has been said by the hon. Member for Limehouse (Mr. Attlee). I would like a definition of what "ruling family" means. I do not know about the Maharajas' families, but other Rulers have blood brothers and they look on many hundreds of their relatives as their family. I believe that the Government is even to-day paying pensions to descendants of Tipoo Tib. "A ruling family" ought to be defined more clearly.

7.19 p.m.

Sir S. HOARE: I am informed that the term "ruling family," in India at any rate, is a term of art, and the family is restricted to the ruling Prince and the one or two members of his actual family, obviously legitimate members. There is, therefore, no danger that the definition would cover too wide a field. My answer to the hon. Member for Limehouse (Mr. Attlee) is very much the answer that I gave to a similar question on the Federal Chapter the other day. This is not an additional embargo upon discussion. It merely brings this question into the category upon which the Governor's previous consent is got before discussion takes place. I suggest that it is just as necessary to have this safeguard in the case of the Provinces as in the case of the Federal Legislature, and that the arguments that prompted the House to agree to safeguards in the case of the Federation apply equally to this provision in the case of the Provinces.

Amendment agreed to.

CLAUSE 86.—(Restrictions on, discussion in the Legislature.)

Amendments made In page 52, line 23, leave out "performance of his judicial functions, "and insert" discharge of his duties.".

In line 23, at the end, insert:
In this sub-section the reference to a High Court shall be construed as including a reference to a court in a Federated State which is a High Court for any of the purposes of Part IX of this Act."—[Sir S. Hoare.]

CLAUSE 89.—(Power of Governor to promulgate ordinances at any time with respect to certain subjects.)

7.20 p.m.

Sir S. HOARE: I beg to move, in page 55, line 12, at the end, to insert:
Provided that, if it appears to the Governor that it is impracticable to obtain in time the concurrence of the Governor-General, he may promulgate an ordinance without the concurrence of the Governor-General, but in that case the Governor-General in his discretion may direct the Governor to withdraw the ordinance and the ordinance shall be withdrawn accordingly.
This is a point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for the English Universities (Sir R. Craddock) during the Committee stage. It relates to the issuing of ordinances. The Committee agreed that the
Governor-General should give his approval to the issue of ordinances issued in the discretion of the Governor of a Province. It was then pointed out that there might be emergencies in which it was not possible to obtain the Governor-General's approval in time. I do not believe that with the telegraph and the telephone those emergencies are likely to occur. None the less to meet a possible gap in our machinery I move the Amendment.

7.21 p.m.

Mr. H. WILLIAMS: This seems a sensible provision but I think it is slightly incomplete. There are many provisions in. Acts of Parliament whereby an order is made which requires either an affirmative resolution by this House or it can be annulled through a Prayer, but it almost invariably provides that if the order is annulled there shall be an indemnity against any proceedings being taken because the thing was temporarily in force and subsequently ceased to be in force. When an ordinance is made it seems to me that certain things may be done under it. Assume that later on the Governor-General instructs a Governor to withdraw the ordinance. What is to happen with regard to the action taken during the period when the ordinance was in temporary force? In our Acts we invariably provide for that state of affairs. There ought to be some protection against any action taken by persons during the period when the ordinance is temporarily in force.

7.22 p.m.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: My hon. Friend is thinking 'of a case where some interference arises, where an order was said to be ultra vires from the beginning or it might be suggested that it was ultra vires from the beginning. Then it is riot an. unusual provision for anything done under the order before it was got rid of to be treated as having been done with authority. But there is no such case in this provision. It merely provides that the ordinance shall be withdrawn. There is no statement that the ordinance shall be treated as if it was ultra vires or that anything shall be done to make it ultra vires The ordinance is valid while it is in existence, but when withdrawn it will cease to be valid, and there is no necessity for giving any indemnity.

Amendment agreed to.

CLAUSE 90.—(Power of Governor in certain circumstances to enact Acts.)

Amendment made In page 55, line 21, leave out from "and, "to "enact, "in line 25, and insert:
either—
(a)enact forthwith as a Governor's Act a Bill containing such provisions as he considers necessary; or
(b)attach to his message a draft of the Bill which he considers necessary.
(2) Where the Governor takes such action as is mentioned in paragraph (b) of the preceding sub-section, he may, at any time after the expiration of one month."—[Sir S. Hoare.]

CLAUSE 91.—(Excluded areas and partially excluded areas.)

7.24 p.m.

Sir S. HOARE: I beg to move, in page 56, line 16, to leave out from "respectively," to "by," in line 19, and to insert:
such areas as His Majesty may by Order in Council declare to be excluded areas or partially excluded areas.
The Secretary of State shall lay the draft of the Order which it is proposed to recommend His Majesty to make under this sub-section before Parliament within six months from the passing of this Act.
(2) His Majesty may at any time.
This Amendment I move in response to an undertaking given by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary during the Committee stage. It is connected with the treatment of the excluded areas. My hon. Friend gave an undertaking that we would withdraw the Schedule and would have a fresh inquiry, and that we would deal with excluded areas by Order in Council; that is to say that when we are ready with our proposals we will circulate them in a White Paper to hon. Members, and the debate upon the details of the excluded areas will take place upon the Motion that the House should agree with the Order in Council. That was the undertaking given and the object of the Amendment is to carry it out.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made In page 56, line 37, at the end, insert:
but save as aforesaid the Order in Council made under sub-section (1) of this section shall not be varied by any subsequent Order."—[Sir S. Hoare.]

CLAUSE 93.—(Power of Governor to issue Proclamations.)

Amendment made In page 58, line 18, leave out from "months, "to end of Subsection, and insert:
Provided that, if and so often as a resolution approving the continuance in force of such a proclamation is passed by both Houses of Parliament, the proclamation shall, unless revoked, continue in force for a further period of six months from the date on which under this Sub-section it would otherwise have ceased to operate, but no such proclamation shall in any case remain in force for more than three years."—[Sir S. Hoare.]

CLAUSE101.—(Extent of power to legislate for States.)

Amendments made In page 61, line 24, leave out "in virtue of the accession of a State to the Federation.".

In line 26, leave out the first "the," and insert "a Federated.".

In line 27, leave out "conditions or."—[Sir S. Hoare.]

CLAUSE 106.—(Provisions as to legislation for giving effect to international agreements.)

Amendments made In page 64, line 16, after "the," insert "treaty or.".

In line 18, leave out "by the Legislature thereof," and insert "or State by a law of that Province or State."—[Sir S. Hoare.]

CLAUSE 107.—(Inconsistency between Federal laws and Provincial, or State, laws.)

Amendment made In page 65, line 5, leave out "inconsistent with," and insert "repugnant to."—[Sir S. Hoare.]

CLAUSE 108.—(Sanction of Governor- General or Governor required for certain legislature proposals.)

7.29 p.m.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: I beg to move, in page 65, line 36, at the end, to insert:
(f)subjects persons not resident in British India to greater taxation than persons resident in British India or subjects companies not wholly controlled and managed in British India to greater taxation than companies wholly controlled and managed therein.
This deals with a question which is the subject of Clause 112. Clause 112 provides for any discriminatory taxation of British subjects domiciled in the United Kingdom, but there is a possible gap in the provision for this reason It might be possible to allow a person to earn money and to save money by carrying on a profession or conducting a trade while he was resident in India, and then, after he has ceased to be a resident in India, to impose upon him or people of his class discriminatory taxation almost of a penal nature by reason of its severity. It is proposed by this addition to the powers contained in Clause 108 to require the previous sanction of the Governor-General, in his discretion, in the case of legislation which subjects persons not resident in British India to greater, taxation than persons resident in British India. It applies to companies—which are dealt with under Clause 112—as well as to individuals.
A great deal of thought has been given to the best way of dealing with this subject. It might possibly have been dealt with by some enactment to the effect that non-resident persons were to be treated, for purposes of taxation, as if they were resident persons and then preventing that provision from being altered. But that course seemed likely to result in tying the hands of the Indian legislature too tightly and preventing them doing certain things which were perfectly legitimate and proper. The House probably knows that the taxation of nonresidents is adopted by a great many countries, in varying degrees of severity, and the idea in this case is not to hamper the Indian Government as regards the imposition of any necessary taxation which may be described as reasonable. The object is to prevent discriminatory taxation in the case of non-resident persons of such a character that it exceeds the bounds of reasonableness—whatever may be the practice in the case of some countries with which we are familiar at the present time.
Another suggestion was that we might lead to the desired result by some provision as to reciprocity. But it is very difficult to devise measures of reciprocity. The differences between Indian taxation and our taxation are so great that it is practically impossible for a draftsman to devise a form of words which will lay
down a basis of reciprocity, in such a way as to ensure the desired result. It has therefore been found necessary to fall back upon the somewhat elastic provisions of Clause 108 and to give the Governor-General the power to withhold the necessary previous sanction from any legislation imposing penal taxation upon nonresidents. If the taxation is of a comparatively mild character, the Governor-General, no doubt, would not feel that it was a matter upon which he needed to intervene, And he would, presumably, in that case give his previous sanction. It is difficult, in fact impossible, for me to lay down a line and to say, "Thus far may they go but no further," but when the actual case arises, I think the House will agree that the Governor-General will probably be able to form an opinion as to whether proposed taxation is proper and reasonable or whether it ought to be prevented on the ground that it will be penal in its discrimination against non-residents. The provision which I now propose is necessary to prevent Clause 112, to which we shall come later, from being made ineffective.

7.35 p.m.

Mr. ATTLEE: This seems to be An attempt to restrain the Indian Legislature from following out the Conservative policy of making the foreigner pay.

Sir S. HOARE: Not the foreigner in dais case.

Mr. ATTLEE: The non-resident may be a foreigner. I understand that he may be someone who is resident either in another part of the British Empire or in another country Altogether. Here we have the repercussions of the doctrines taught by the Conservative party which have been so thoroughly learned in India, and now hon. Members opposite object to the Indians applying those doctrines. I think that is very unreasonable. I cannot see why we should put this provision in the Bill. I think the taxation of foreigners is a foolish thing, but it is done in many parts of the world, and, after all, the idea is that we are giving India, a certain degree of freedom in these matters. I suggest that here again is a whittling Away of the Fiscal Autonomy Convention. There seems to be no reason why the Governor-General should have this right. I think at times we ought to allow the Indians to make their own mistakes. If they make a mistake of this kind it may
result in retaliations by other countries. But it is now proposed to impose this restriction on the Indian Legislature, while, in other parts of the British, Empire as well as in foreign countries, all kinds of discrimination might be practised against Indians. I think this is a thoroughly undesirable addition to the Clause 'and we shall oppose it.

7.37 p.m.

Mr. MOLSON: The hon. Member for Limehouse (Mr. Attlee) suggested that this Amendment was in some way an infringement of the Fiscal Convention. In view of the fact that the Convention only referred to the imposition of customs or protective duties in cases where the Government of India and the Indian Legislature were in agreement, I do not see by what stretch of the imagination this proposal can be regarded as an infringement of the Convention. He also suggested that it was desirable that India should be allowed to make her own mistakes but there does not seem to be sufficient reason for allowing her to make her own mistakes at the expense of other people. There are provisions in this Bill for the purpose of maintaining the financial credit of India. The purpose of the Bill in that respect is to see that, under the new Constitution, India will be able to borrow money cheaply in the markets of the world in order to carry on those great measures of social amelioration which we hope will be undertaken by the future Government.
This Amendment carries out an undertaking given by the Government during the Committee stage, and in view of the very cautious comments of the right hon. and learned Gentleman on that occasion I think the Government have carried out their promise in a generous spirit. At the same time, it does not go as far as the European community in India would wish, nor even as far as they think they are entitled to claim. I am sorry that the Government were not able to deal with the matter on the basis of reciprocity and in view of what the Attorney-General has said I ought to make it plain that the European community in India believe that this protection to prevent discriminatory taxation of non-residents is only what they are entitled to so long as recipients of incomes from this country, who reside
abroad, are subject to no greater taxation than that paid by people resident in the United Kingdom. I was a little concerned at that part of the Attorney-General's speech which seemed to indicate that under this Clause it might be permissible to impose higher taxation upon non-residents than upon residents. He did not seem to regard it as a matter of principle or to consider that any departure from the present system would be unjustifiable and inequitable, so long as this country does not practise any discrimination against Indians who draw revenues from securities held in this country. However, under this Amendment it will be open to the European community and other people affected to make representations and I think it will be possible for them to show that anything in the nature of higher taxation upon non-residents than upon residents would not be wise from the point of view of India's credit or justifiable on grounds of equity. I thank the Government for the way in which they have carried out their undertaking.

7.41 p.m.

Sir B. PETO: I wish to ask how this Amendment will operate in two specific cases. I take first the case of a mining company owning property in India but not registered in India. Would this Amendment ensure that such a company —subject of course to the sanction of the Governor-General in his discretion—would not be subject to higher mining taxation or any other taxation of that kind, than mining companies registered in India? Secondly, is it intended to protect those whom I may describe as absentee landlords? Will the Amendment prevent special penal taxation being imposed in respect of the ownership of land in India upon a person who resides in this country? If so, in both cases it ought to be enacted here and not left to the hope that no future Governor-General will sanction discriminatory taxation of that kind which clearly would involve hardship to British subjects. The hon. Member for Limehouse (Mr. Attlee) suggested that the Amendment was contrary to what he termed the Conservative principle of taxing the foreigner. I did not understand from the Attorney-General's speech that the Amendment was intended to deal with foreigners at all. I understood that it applied to
British subjects, but as it is worded it appears to cover everybody no matter what his nationality may be. Is it the intention to cover, equally, British subjects and subjects of every other country in this respect? It appears to me that the Amendment is worded so widely that it will go beyond the protection that we want to give. It is conceivable that the Governor-General in his discretion might think that some taxation which was to apply to subjects of foreign countries was reasonable, whereas he might regard it as discriminatory if applied against British subjects.

7.45 p.m.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: My hon. Friend in his first question raised a point about taxation upon mining companies. He will find that Clause 112 deals with that matter and that a mining company would be amply protected by the general provisions of that Clause. So far as the second question is concerned, the answer undoubtedly is that which my hon. Friend would desire. He asked whether it would apply to persons who are not resident in India, but who own land there. Certainly. The only condition contained in this new paragraph is that they should be "not resident in British India." It does not matter whether they own land or do not own land. If a law is introduced subjecting them to discriminatory taxation, the Governor-General, if these words are inserted, will have the power to withhold his sanction to the proposal.

Sir B. PETO: What about the wording of the Amendment—"persons, "not" subjects"?

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: It must depend on the particular case. The Governor-General is not likely to use a discretion given to him under this paragraph in favour of people with whom he is not concerned. It must depend on the facts of the particular case.

Mr. ATTLEE: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman answer the actual question put? As the Amendment is drafted, it does not apply only to British subjects, but to all the world. Is that not so?

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: Quite so.

7.47 p.m.

Mr. H. WILLIAMS: I should like to congratulate the Secretary of State upon introducing this Amendment. It is true that as drawn it is world-wide in its application, but it is not a complete prohibition against the Federal Legislature imposing, if the circumstances require it, measures of discrimination against anybody. Obviously you cannot completely deprive a country of that right, but in this case what are the limitations t The Governor-General in his discretion must give permission; that is to say, it is a matter on which his Ministers have no right to give him advice, and when the Governor-General acts in his discretion he has to consult with the Secretary of State at home and act under his direction. That seems to me to be a good safeguard. It provides that where something ought to be done, it can be done, and in general it prevents the Legislature from doing things that are likely to lead to trouble or to treat this country unfairly. It is also right that discrimination against foreigners should be prevented in certain circumstances, because, as the foreign policy of India is a function reserved to the Governor-General, it would be undesirable that the Legislature should be permitted to pass legislation which might give rise to a serious foreign situation.
Although these are powers, at first sight, to prevent an Indian Legislature doing what they wish, in the long run I am certain that this will be good for India, because, as the hon. Member for Doncaster (Mr. Molson) pointed out, by having this check and safeguard you are going to create far greater confidence than would otherwise be the case. People will be attracted to develop enterprises of all kinds in India with the full knowledge and security that when they have undertaken developments they will not be frivolously robbed of that which is rightly theirs. I think the Amendment is well drafted and that the Secretary of State should be cordially congratulated on having found this happy solution of what was obviously a rather difficult problem. I was one of those who in Committee tried to draft one or two Amendments dealing with the situation, but they were not called, whether because of bad draftsmanship or because the hon. Member for Doncaster and his friends got
there first, I do not know. I admit, however, that this seems an excellent solution of a difficult problem.

7.50 p.m.

Mr. ISAAC FOOT: I saw a criticism a day or two ago in the "Times" newspaper as to the strengthening of safeguards during the discussion of this Bill, and I am sorry to see this additional safeguard introduced. I do not know that there is any real danger to be apprehended against which this Amendment would be an adequate protection. I am afraid the fact of having an additional safeguard will only be to enlarge that alienation of Indian opinion of which the correspondent in the "Times" wrote last week. If we could be sure that there was some real danger apprehended by the Government, and that this was the only way of dealing with it, it would be a different matter, but when the Attorney-General introduced the Amendment just now he did not give us any information along those lines. I am sorry, but I am bound to express my regret that during the Report stage of this Bill there should be further safeguards introduced which can only tend to irritate Indian opinion, and I am satisfied that if there were a desire to take a line penalising foreigners, including ourselves, a Clause like this would not be likely to have the desired effect. Therefore, because I think such a Clause will strike at that spirit of good will on which the whole future of the Bill depends, if there is to be a Division, I am afraid I must be associated with those who vote against the Amendment.

7.52 p.m.

Sir S. HOARE: I very much hope the anxieties of the hon. Member for Bodmin (Mr. Isaac Foot) will prove to be groundless. I do not regard this Amendment as a new safeguard. It has always been intended to provide safeguards against penal discrimination. It was borne in upon me that there was a great deal of anxiety in the minds of many of the representatives of the business community that they might be subjected to the kind of discrimination to which they have been subjected by more than one foreign country in recent years, and it appeared to me that it was necessary to be somewhat more explicit, even though we were adding no new safeguard at all in the Bill. That is all that this proposal does.
It is founded upon the basis, on which we have always worked, that there is this partnership between India and Great Britain and that, as there is this partnership, penal discrimination ought not to be permissible.

Mr. ATTLEE: The right hon. Gentleman is talking about a partnership, but this Amendment deals, not with questions as between Great Britain and India, but with India's relations to citizens of all the rest of the world.

Sir S. HOARE: So it may appear from the words, but in practice it is intended to deal with the different partners, and if the Governor-General's power under this Clause is ever brought into operation—I hope the circumstances will never necessitate it—he will bring it into operation, I feel sure, in protection of the British partnership. That is our sole object.

Mr. ISAAC FOOT: Does the right hon. Gentleman think this is in line with what was already recommended by the Joint Select Committee? Does he think it does not add an additional safeguard, and has he had any opportunity of ascertaining Indian opinion upon the subject?

Sir S. HOARE: I can assure my hon. Friend that it does not add any factor of importance to the problem at all. The position put to me, I may tell the hon. Member, was this: It was said, "Your proposals against penal discrimination prevent unfair obstacles being put in the way of business carrying on its work and earning its profits, but you have done nothing to prevent those profits being subsequently confiscated by penal taxation after they have been earned." Now we always intended—the Joint Select Committee always intended, I think—to cover the whole field, and all that this proposal does is to make explicit the fact that we intend to cover the whole field. Again let me say that it is not a new proposal and that it does not add any new safeguard.

Amendment agreed to.

CLAUSE 110.—(Savings.)

7.55 p.m.

Sir S. HOARE: I beg to move, in page 67, line 17, after "Family," to insert "or the Succession to the Crown."
This is little more than a drafting Amendment. It adds to the phrase about the Royal Family, "or the Succession to the Crown.".

Amendment agreed to.

Sir S. HOARE: I beg to move, in page line 24, after "by," to insert "any subsequent provisions of."
This is an Amendment arising out of a discussion in the Committee and is intended to make more clear the fact that the provisions of this constituent Act can only -be altered by the Imperial Parliament, with two exceptions, both of which are concerned with details connected with the Railway Board. This Amendment makes that fact a little bit clearer than it was before.

Amendment agreed to.

CLAUSE 111.—(British subjects domiciled in the United Kingdom.)

Sir S. HOARE: I beg to move, in page line 14, to leave out "similar," and to insert "like."
This is merely a drafting Amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

7.58 p.m.

Sir R. CRADDOCK: I beg to move, in page 68, line 17, at the end, to insert:
(2) if the Governor-General or, as the case may be, a Governor shall consider that any provision of any Bill imposing any restriction, condition, or liability mentioned in the preceding Sub-section is harsh, oppressive, or unfairly discriminatory it shall be his duty to withhold his assent from such Bill.
The object of the Amendment is to prevent, if possible, laws being passed of a discriminatory nature which might drive people afterwards to challenge them in litigation. Disputes may arise, with regard to property laws, for instance, whether similar restrictions are imposed in the United Kingdom on Indians as are imposed in India on domiciles in this country. It would seem best to emphasise that where such cases occur the Governor-General should have power to veto a Bill instead of allowing all these doubts and difficulties to be the subject of litigation in the courts. Where you have to decide as to the exact meaning of a. practice in this country which is supposed to constitute a form of discrimination, it is difficult for the courts to find out what exact discrimination or
restriction is enforced in the United Kingdom and to interpret the exact extent of it with a view to deciding whether or not the discrimination is reciprocal. It seems very much better to make it clear that the Governor-General shall be able to refuse his assent to any such Bill, and so prevent litigation which might involve a large number of cases and appeals possibly right up to the Privy Council.

Mr. LENNOX-BOYD: I beg to second the Amendment.

8.1 p.m.

Mr. MOLSON: It would obviously be extremely desirable that if a Bill of this kind were passed by a legislature the Governor-General or Governor should be allowed to prevent it, but if my hon. Friend the Member for the English Universities (Sir R. Craddock) will refer to page 9 of the Instruments of Instructions, he will find that in paragraph XXVII (d) (Matters affecting the Legislature) it is already provided that the Governor-General shall not assent to any Bill regarding which he feels doubt whether it does, or does not, offend against the purposes of Chapter III, Part V, of the said Act.

8.2 p.m.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: When I saw this Amendment on the Order Paper I was not quite clear what my hon. Friend had in mind. The Amendment deals only with Bills the provisions of which impose the restrictions set out in the preceding Sub-section. The preceding Sub-section lays down that provisions of that kind shall have no application to any British subject. It therefore seems to me that that matter was as watertight as could be and had been provided for in the most satisfactory way. But I rather gathered from my hon. Friend's speech that he had a rather different question in mind. He was not contemplating that an Indian Legislature would be so foolish as to pass a law with a discriminatory intention which quite plainly would not effect its purposes because its provisions would not apply to British subjects. I rather gathered that his idea was that under the Clause as drafted possibly difficult questions might arise which might involve litigation, and therefore it would be better that the Governor-General
should veto Bills under which such questions might arise. With all respect, I suggest to the House that on examination that really will not stand. It is unfortunately inevitable that questions may arise in this connection, or indeed on other Clauses of the Bill, which are difficult and demand recourse to the courts for decision. But surely it would not be right in the first place to say that the Governor-General is to decide these questions in advance. It might work against British subjects; it might work the other way round. Surely it would not be right, Parliament having laid down this very important Clause, safeguarding on the one hand British subjects and on the other the powers of Indian Legislatures, that the Governor-General or the Governor should decide such questions himself. It would also be placing an intolerable burden on him.
My hon. Friend referred to a case of such difficulty, where the arguments were very evenly balanced, that it, might come up to the Privy Council here. Within the intention of the words which Parliament has used it would be an intolerable burden to throw the matter on the Governor-General to decide himself. We feel also—I think my hon. Friend may agree with this—that it would be very undesirable to put into this Bill any express instruction as to a particular matter in which the Governor-General or the Governor was to exercise his veto under Clauses 32 or 75 respectively. As the hon. Member for Doncaster (Mr. Molson) has pointed out, this matter is already covered by an express paragraph in the Instruments of Instructions. But it could not be right to insert in the Bill one particular Clause suggesting possibly that here is a matter which is to be dealt with by veto. For these reasons while appreciating as I do, as I think I appreciate more than when I first saw the Amendment on the Paper, the kind of difficulties my hon. Friend wished to meet, I think there would be great objections to meeting them in this way. I therefore cannot accept this Amendment.

Amendment negatived.

CLAUSE 113.—(Companies incorporated in the United Kingdom.)

Further Amendments made In page 69, line 21, leave out from "the," to "shall," in line 23, and insert:
holders of its shares, stock, debentures, debenture stock or bonds, and its officers, agents and servants.

In line 25, after "on," insert "or proposing to carry on.".

In line 28 after "company," insert:
or the situation of its registered office, or the currency in which its capital or loan capital is expressed.

In line 32, leave out from the second "of," to "debentures," in line 33, and insert "the holders of its shares, stock.".

In line 34, after the first "or," insert "of.".

In line 41, leave out "trading," and insert "carrying on or proposing to carry on business."—[The Solicitor-General.]

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: I beg to move, in page 70, line 2, after "from," to insert "or preferential treatment in respect of.".

8.12 p.m.

Sir H. CROFT: May I ask as to exactly what the Amendment means.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: It is a drafting Amendment. If the hon. and gallant Gentleman will read the words at the top of the page:
If and in so far as any total or partial exemption from or preferential treatment in respect of..

Sir H.CROFT: What is preferential treatment?

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: Any preferential treatment. It will cover three things—total exemption, partial exemption and something which might produce the same result as exemption. It is a purely drafting Amendment to prevent any sort of getting round the intention of the Clause.

Amendment agreed to.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: I beg to move, in page 70, line 4, leave out "paragraph (b) of."
On examination there seemed to be no particular reason why paragraph (b) should be singled out. We have also by Amendments which the House has just passed put in two more conditions, one dealing with the currency in which the balance-sheets and the accounts of a company are kept and the other with the position of its registered office, and it
seems to us that there is no distinction to be drawn for the purposes of this Subsection between the various matters.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In page 70, line 8, after "exemption," insert "or preferential treatment."—[The Solicitor-General.]

CLAUSE 114.—(Companies incorporated in India.)

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: I beg to move, in page 70, line 19, after "incorporated," to insert "or proposed to be incorporated."
This is rather more than a drafting Amendment. It meets a point which was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster (Mr. Molson). He said that although this Clause protected companies already incorporated, there might be attempts to get round it by imposing discriminatory conditions on companies
in process of incorporation. Therefore, we propose to add the words of the Amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made In page 70, line 25, leave out from the first "of," to "officers," in line 26, and insert:
the holders of its shares, stock, debentures, debenture stock or bonds, or of its."—[The Solicitor-General.]

Five consequential Amendments made.

CLAUSE 116.—(Subsidies for the encouragement of trade or industry.)

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: I beg to move, in page 71, line 39, to leave out "payable out of public moneys."
The object of this Amendment is to correct a mistake. In the Committee stage the words "payable out of the revenues of the Federation or of a Province "were substituted in the earlier part of this Clause for the original words "payable out of public moneys." Those words were put in to meet an objection by the States. When the Amendment was made the words "payable out of public moneys" were not omitted from the other part of the Clause.

Amendment agreed to.

8.19 p.m.

Mr. MOLSON;: I beg to move, in page 72, line 14, at the end, to insert "and until
On the Committee stage I moved an Amendment to the same effect, but differently drafted, and my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary asked me not to press it on the ground that it did not add very much to the sense of the Clause. The House is aware of the general position with regard to the payment of these subsidies, and it occurred to us that it was possible that the Clause as drafted might be interpreted to mean that a company would not in any circumstances be entitled to receive a subsidy unless at the time the subsidy Act was passed it was complying with the conditions laid down in the Clause. That was never the intention of the External Fiscal Commission or the Round Table Conference, and I do not think it was the intention of the Government. If the Government's interpretation of the Clause is right, my Amendment would only mean the addition of two redundant words, but, in the view of my advisers, it will clear away an ambiguity.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: We are grateful to my hon. Friend for putting down this Amendment. For the reasons he has advanced, we think that it is desirable to have these words in.

Amendment agreed to.

8.21 p.m.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: I beg to move, in page 72, line 16, after "India, "to insert:
or, if the Act so provides, is incorporated by or under the laws of British India or of a Federated State.
'This and the two following Amendments potentially bring into Sub-section (2) the Indian States. The Sub-section as drafted applied only to companies incorporated in British India, and the conditions as to reasonable facilities for training applied only to British subjects domiciled in India. These Amendments extend the Clause so that any Act may provide that this Clause as a whole and the facilities referred to can apply to companies incorporated in the Federated States.

Sir STAFFORD CRIPPS: May I ask whether this Amendment is in the right form? It does not seem to read sensibly, because, if these words are added, the words "is incorporated by or under the laws of British India" will appear twice.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: I will certainly look into that point. I read it as though it were put in that way because the Act contemplates, on the one hand, that the law may apply to British India, and, on the other hand, that the law may apply to British India or the States; but that it did not contemplate applying to the States and not to British India.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made In page 72, line 20, after "India, "insert:
or, if the Act so provides, are either British subjects domiciled in India or subjects of a Federated State.

In line 21, leave out from "facilities," to end of paragraph and insert:
as may be so prescribed for the training of British subjects domiciled in India or, if the Act so provides, of British subjects domiciled in India or subjects of a Federated State."—[The Solicitor-General.]

CLAUSE 118.—(Professional and technical qualifications in general.)

8.25 p.m.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: I beg to move, in page 73, line 11, to leave out Sub-section (1).
This first Amendment goes with the other long and rather formidable-looking Amendment to insert three new Subsections which stands on the Order Paper in the name of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and which I will explain in a moment. The Clause, which deals with professional and technical qualifications, was discussed at some length in Committee. Hon. Members opposite pointed out that in so far as it protects people already in India the Clause is too rigid, because it might be that among them there are people who for one reason or another, possibly because they were practising some form of quackery which was deleterious to the public, ought not to be given the benefit of this protection. That point we thought was a good one, and we have sought to meet it in the new Sub-section (2) by giving the Governor-General or the Governor power to make an exception to the protection which it is intended to give to these people if some exception is, in his view, in the public interest. We feel that will meet that point, which I think was raised by the hen. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Morgan Jones). So far as the general intention of the Clause is
concerned, namely, that there should be control over professional and technical qualifications, so that they should not be used to discriminate unfairly against anyone, it was pointed out that the Clause as drafted applied to Acts of the Legislature, but that the effective instrument which debarred some people from practising or laid down the actual conditions for practising and which could, therefore, be used for a discriminatory purpose, was to be found in the rules or regulations made under an Act. It is proper in these cases that the Act should be in general terms and should set up some body and give them power to make rules. Therefore, if we desire to carry out the general idea, laid down in the first instance by the Joint Select Committee, of preventing discrimination, we really should deal with the rules as well as with Acts of Parliament, because otherwise the Clause might easily become inoperative.
If the House will look at the further Amendment to which I have referred they will see that regulations made under the provisions of any Federal or Provincial law which prescribe professional or technical qualifications or impose by reference to any professional or technical qualifications any disability, liability or condition shall, not less than four months before they are to come Into operation, be published in such manner as may be required by general or special direction of the Governor-General or the Governor, and if within two months of such publication complaint is made to the Governor-General or the Governor that the regulations will operate unfairly against any class of persons affected the Governor-General or Governor, if he is of opinion that the complaint is well-founded, may disallow the regulations. By dealing with the matter in that way one produces this result, that neither the Governor-General nor the Governor will be troubled if there is nothing discriminatory or of which anybody has any right to complain in the regulations. Minor alterations will be made frequently and probably no such complaints as I have indicated will then arise. The Amendment does not extend the intention of the Clause, but makes it operative by making it apply to the instruments in which those evil intents against which the Clause is directed, if any, will be found. Then it was pointed
out that the Clause as originally drafted applied only to future Acts and not to rules which might be made under existing Acts, and that point also has been met. The last Sub-section provides for the division of functions as between the Governor-General and the Governor and enables the powers to be split up between them. There, are a lot of words on the Order Paper, but I think that I have substantially explained the effect of this and the following Amendments.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made In page 73, line 29, after "any," insert "disability.".

In line 31, alter the first "any," insert "occupation, trade, or.".

In line 37, at the end, insert:
(2) The Governor-General or a Governor shall not give his sanction for the purposes of the preceding Sub-section unless he is satisfied that the proposed legislation is so framed as to secure that no person who, immediately before the coming into operation of any disability, liability, restriction, or condition to be imposed by or under that legislation, was lawfully practising any profession, carrying on any occupation, trade, or business, or holding any office in British India shall, except in so far as may be necessary in the interests of the public, be debarred from continuing to practise that profession, carry on that occupation, trade, or business or hold that office, or from doing anything in the course of that profession, occupation, trade, or business or in the discharge of the duties of that office which he could lawfully have done if that disability, liability, restriction, or condition had not come into operation.
(3) All regulations made under the provisions of any Federal or Provincial law winch prescribe the professional or technical qualifications which are to be requisite for any purpose in British India, or impose by reference to any professional or technical qualification, any disability, liability, restriction, or condition in regard to the practising of any profession, the carrying on of any occupation, trade, or business, or the holding of any office in British India, shall, not less than four months before they are expressed to come into operation, be published in such manner as may be required by general or special directions of the Governor-General or, as the case may be, the Governor, and, if within two months from the date of the publication complaint is made to the Governor-General or, as the case may be, the Governor that the regulations or any of them will operate unfairly as against any class of persons affected thereby, the Governor-General or Governor, if he is of opinion that the complaint is well founded, may, at any time before the regulations are expressed to come into operation,
by public notification disallow the regulations or any of them.
In this Sub-section the expression 'regulations' includes rules, by-laws, orders and ordinances.
In the discharge of his functions under this Sub-section the Governor-General or a Governor shall exercise his individual judgment.
(4) If the Governor-General exercising his individual judgment by public notification directs that the provisions of the last preceding Sub-section shall apply in relation to any existing Indian law, those provisions shall apply in relation to that law accordingly, and the functions which under those provisions are to be performed in relation to a Federal law by the Governor-General and in relation to a Provincial law by the Governor shall, in relation to that existing Indian law, be performed, according as may be directed by the notification, by the Governor-General exercising his individual judgment, the Governor exercising his individual judgment or partly by the one and partly by the other of them."—[The Solicitor-General.]

CLAUSE 119.—(Medical qualifications.)

Amendment made In page 75, line 20, after "any" insert "liability, disability."—[The Solicitor-General.]

CLAUSE 122.—(General duty to secure respect for Federal laws.)

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: I beg to move, in page 76, line 31, to leave out "as well."
As originally drafted the Clause read in this way:
The executive authority of every Province and Federated State shall be so exercised as to secure respect as well for the laws of the Federal Legislature which apply in that Province or State as for the laws of the Province or of the State.
The States pointed out, I think quite rightly, that it was not the function and, indeed, was not within the jurisdiction of this House, to say that they must enforce their own laws. This Amendment and the one that follows put that matter right. I think it was a mistake that the Clause should have been drafted as it was, because quite clearly the enforcement of the State laws by the State, apart from the Federal laws, is not a matter with which this Bill is concerned.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made In page 76, line 32, leave out "as for the laws of the Province or of the State."—[The Solicitor-General.]

CLAUSE 124.—(Power of Federal Legislature to confer powers, etc., on Provinces and States in certain cases.)

8.34 p.m.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: 1 beg to move, in page 77, line 28, at the end, to insert:
to be designated for the purpose by the Ruler.
This Clause deals with the powers of the Federal Legislature to confer powers both on the Provinces and on the States in certain cases, and the words of the first Amendment come in at the end of. Sub-section (3), which reads as follows:
An Act of the Federal Legislature which extends to a Federated State may confer powers and impose duties upon the State or officers and authorities thereof.
The Amendment proposes to insert at the end:
to be designated for the purpose by the Ruler.
This matter was, I think, referred to in the White Paper. The States thought that it ought not to be open to the Federal Legislature to confer powers upon specified State officials and that if any official had to exercise powers, he should be designated by the Ruler. That point my right hon. Friend thought to be a reasonable and proper one, and I suggest to the House that his decision in the matter was right.

Amendment agreed to.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: I beg to move, in page 77, line 35, to leave out from the second "of, "to the end of the Clause, and to insert:
any extra costs of administration incurred by the Province or State in connection with the exercise of those powers and duties.
This Amendment deals with Sub-section (4) of the Clause. Perhaps I might read the relevant words to the Committee, in The Sub-section provides that there shall be paid
such sum as may be agreed, or, in default of agreement, as may ho determined by an arbitrator appointed by the Chief Justice of India, in respect of "—
and then the Clause, as originally drafted, read:
the cost of any additional staff thereby rendered necessary in the Province or State.
The Amendment proposed leaves out those words and substitutes others. This point also was raised by the States. They said that the Clause as drafted did not provide sufficiently accurately for payments that ought to be made in virtue of arrangements that might be made under the Sub-section. The original words simply referred to expenses of additional staff, but there might be a question of expenses other than for additional staff. Therefore, we omit those words and put in more general words.

8.38 p.m.

Mr. ATT'LEE: This is a very important Amendment, but I do not know how far it carries us. In the original scheme, it was proposed to give the Centre power over any legislation which would put any cost upon the Provinces, or for that matter on the States. Obviously, that would frustrate social legislation from the Centre. Provinces or States might pass legislation, but they could not see it carried out, and there was a very great danger that it would not be carried out. We have now got beyond that point. I take it that we have met the point, which was an obvious one, that if the Federal Legislature should pass a general law and impose duties and expenses on the Federal units, the latter should be reimbursed by the Centre. Up to this point, and until the Amendment was moved, that proposal was limited merely to the cost of extra salaries and so on, but "extra cost of administration" seems a fairly wide phrase. I do not know whether the Government spokesman will tell us exactly what that will cover. I do not know whether it would, for instance, cover the passing of the kind of general social legislation which may obviously have to be carried out in the Provinces and for which staff would be needed, or whether it merely applies to a case in which the Province or State is an agent of the Centre for the carrying out of certain duties. Perhaps that might be made clear.

8.40 p.m.

Mr. BUTLER: I think I can answer quite simply the point put by the hon. Member for Limehouse (Mr. Attlee). This matter refers to the latter case, of delegated powers of the Federation, and the Amendment is no more than a draft-
ing Amendment. It does not raise those social questions to which the hon. Member referred. In certain cases the Federation would delegate its powers. It was thought that the original words as to staff were not broad enough to cover those cases, and that they would not cover the extra cost of administration which the Federation had delegated to the State. It was to meet that point rather more accurately and to meet all such contingencies that we have slightly altered the drafting.

Mr. ATTLEE: As to the question of duties imposed, when a Bill is passed imposing a duty upon a Province to provide certain facilities, say for old age pensions, miners' baths or welfare, it seems that the words in the Bill would authorise the imposing of those duties and the paying from the Centre of money to the Provinces for those reforms.

Mr. BUTLER: The matters to which my hon. Friend refers will be found within the Concurrent List. To meet the case in which the Federal Legislature imposes duties upon a Province, we only slightly alter the drafting of the words originally in the Bill so as to include the extra expense of administrative duties in. connection with subjects in the Federal List. This provision is therefore strictly limited to subjects in the Federal List. The scope of the amended Sub-section is therefore not very much greater than the original Sub-section.

Sir H. CROFT: Before the hon. Members sits down, can he give us some example of what this will mean? There must be some reason for putting in the new words.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Sir Dennis Herbert): I do not know whether any other hon. Member wishes to raise a point, but I would remind the House that the Under-Secretary of State has already spoken twice and that this is the Report stage.

Sir H. CROFT: That was why I was asking him before he resumed his seat to give a single instance of what is meant by the Amendment.

Mr. BUTLER: With the permission of the House, I would suggest the enforcement of the Arms Act or some question
arising out of the enforcement of Customs Acts.

Amendment agreed to.

CLAUSE 125.—(Administration of Federal Acts in, Indian States.)

8.44 p.m.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: I beg to move, in page 78, line 11, at the end, to insert:
(3) All courts shall take judicial notice of any agreement made under this section.
The Amendment deals with agreements which might be made, either in accordance with Instruments of Accession or with regard to the administration of Federal Acts in the Indian States. The Amendment merely makes a provision with regard to the Instruments themselves that courts shall take judicial notice of any agreement made under this Clause. Obviously an agreement dealing with administration, whether in or contemplated by an Instrument of Accession or not, is a matter which might affect the legal constitutional position within the State. Therefore it might have to be read with the Instrument of Accession in order to find out what the exact legal position was. The Amendment simply states that the court shall take judicial notice of it, if there is a necessity for any formal proof.

Amendment agreed to.

CLAUSE 127.—(Acquisition of land for Federal purposes.)

The following Amendments stood upon Me Order Paper:.

In page 79, line 2, to leave out from "acquire," to "any," in line 3.

In page 79, line 4, after the first "Province," to insert:
for any purpose connected with a matter with respect to which the Federal Legislature has power to make laws."—[Sir S. Hoare.]

8.45 p.m.

Mr. BUTLER: I beg to move, in page 79, line 2, to leave out from "acquire," to "any," in line 3.
These two Amendments, which go together, are drafting Amendments intended to meet points raised during the Committee stage as to the meaning of the words "acquire for the purposes of the Federation." The first Amendment deletes the words:
for the purposes of the Federation (including purposes of the Federal Railway Authority)
and the second adds, after the words "any land situate in a Province," the words:
for any purpose connected with a matter with respect to which the Federal Legislature has power to make laws..

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. BUTLER: I beg to move, in page 79, line 4, after the first "Province, "to insert:
for any purpose connected with a matter with respect to which the Federal Legislature has power to make laws..

8.47 p.m.

Sir S. C R I PPS: I think the question was raised during the Committee stage as to whether this Clause would empower the Federation to give powers to some corporation, for instance, to acquire land, and it was suggested that, as the Clause originally stood, although the Federation could acquire land, it could not authorise the acquisition of land by a corporation. The words which it is now proposed to insert still leave the question whether the Clause would confer power on the Federation to delegate that authority to some other body which was given some monopoly or right of that kind. Could the hon. Gentleman tell us whether that is the effect of the words which it is proposed to insert?

8.48 p.m.

Sir S. HOARE: I made inquiry on this point, and I understand that there never has been this power in India. In actual practice it has always been the Government that has acted for corporations. We were advised that there was no reason to change that system, and on that account we have not made any proposal to enable corporations to make these purchases, believing that the Government would still continue to act for them.

Amendment agreed to.

8.49 p.m.

Mr. BUTLER: I beg to move, in page 79, line 5, to leave out from "behalf" to the end of the Clause, and to insert:
and at the expense, of the Federation or, if the land belongs to the Province, to transfer it to the Federation on such terms as may be agreed or, in default of agreement, as may be determined by an arbitrator appointed by the Chief Justice of India.
This Amendment arises from a further examination of the Clause since our last consideration of it. It appeared to us that it was appropriately worded for cases in which the land had to be acquired from a private owner, but that it was not appropriate in cases where the land acquired by the Federation was already in the hands of a Province. The Amendment makes it clear that in the latter case the Federation must pay for the land—that was always intended—and that, if the Federation and the Province cannot agree as to terms, the matter must be settled by arbitration.

8.50 p.m.

Sir S. CRIPPS: I am glad that this provision is being put into the Bill to make the matter clear, and I should also like to tell the Secretary of State how glad we are that he shares with us the view that the right people to hold land in these cases are the State, and not monopoly companies.

Amendment agreed to.

CLAUSE 128.—(Duty of a Ruler of a State as respects Federal subjects.)

The following Amendments stood upon the Order Paper:.

In page 79, line 13, at the end, to insert "by virtue of a law of the Federal Legislature which applies therein.".

In page 79, line 17, after "may," to insert "after considering any representations made to him by the Ruler.".

In page 79, line 18, at the end, to insert:
Provided that, if any question arises under this Section as to whether the executive authority of the Federation is exercisable in a State with respect to any matter or as to the extent to which it is so exercisable, the question may, at the instance either of the Federation or the Ruler, be referred to the Federal Court for determination by that Court in the exercise of its original jurisdiction under this Act."—[Sir S. Hoare.]

8.50 p.m.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: I beg to move, in page 79, line 13, at the end, to insert:
by virtue of a law of the Federal Legislature which applies therein.
The House may remember that we inserted in Clause 8 a new Sub-section providing for the continuance of the executive authority of the Ruler of a federated State with respect to matters
on which the Federal Legislature has power to make laws for that State, except in so far as the executive authority of the Federation becomes exercisable in the State to the exclusion of the executive authority of the Ruler by virtue of a Federal law. These three Amendments to Clause 128 hang together, but the first of them is really consequential upon that addition of Sub-section (2) to Clause 8. The Amendment to add the words:
by virtue of a law of the Federal Legislature which applies therein,
is to make it plain that the Federation cannot give directions to a State on the ground that the way in which its executive authority is being exercised impedes or prejudices the executive authority of the Federation, unless the matter in respect of which the impediment is said to occur relates to a specific Federal Act. To put it in another way, it is not to be within the power of the Federation to give a direction to a federated State on this ground of impediment merely because the subject-matter is one of the matters contained in the Federal Legislative List; there must be a specific Federal Act out of which the impediment is said to arise. The second Amendment is merely to make it plain that the Governor-General is to consider any representations which may be made by the Ruler, and I am sure the House will agree that that is common sense as well as justice. Lastly, the proviso which it is proposed to add is to make it plain that the Federal Government has a legal right to claim executive authority in the State. Therefore, the proviso is to the effect that, if any question arises under the Section, the question may, at the instance of either the Federation or the Ruler, be referred to the Federal Court for determination. That would enable the issue as to whether it is a matter in respect of which the Federation may give directions to be decided by the Federal Court.

8.54 p.m.

Mr. ATTLEE: I do not quite see how the proviso fits in with Sub-section (2). There, if the Governor-General considers that the Ruler of a federated State has failed, he issues an order and tells him to get on with it. On the other hand, there seems to be a possibility of raising the matter in the Federal Court. Is that a challenge in the Federal Court to the
authority of the Governor-General? Suppose some matter arises and the Ruler fails to fulfil his obligations. After the Governor-General consults with the Ruler, is it then possible for the Ruler to take action in the Federal Court to determine as to whether there was jurisdiction or not to give such an order?

8.55 p.m.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: Yes, I think so. The hon. Gentleman will see that Sub-section (2) hangs upon Subsection (1). First of all, it is provided that the executive authority of every Federated State shall be exercised in such a way as not to impede the executive authority of the Federation. Subsection (2) provides that if the Governor-General thinks that the Ruler of any Federated State is not carrying out his duty in this respect, he may give certain directions. The answer of the Federated State may be "You have no right to issue your directions, because this is not a matter which arises out of any specific Federal act. "Thereupon the Ruler, if he so pleases, may move the Federal Court to decide the issue in his favour.

8.56 p.m.

Sir S. CRIPPS: The word "prejudice" in Sub-section (1)—
as not to impede or prejudice the exercise"—
was presumably intended to deal with anticipatory legislation. That is something a Ruler might do by legislation in his own State. He could impede some act already passed, or, if he contemplated that something might be done, he might prejudice the exercise of the executive authority of the Federated State so far as it was exercisable in the State before it was actually going to be exercised. With the additional words, supposing it is well known that the Legislature intends to pass a law on a certain subject matter, and supposing the Ruler, anticipating that, prejudices the action by passing legislation in his own State. I hear the right hon. and learned Gentleman say that it is not legislation. Legislation is what will set the executive action going, and if they contemplate certain legislation it will be well known that, if the Ruler can get in first, he can prejudice the executive action of the Federation. As an act of legislation would this allow that situation to be dealt with by the Clause as
now amended, or has, in fact, the effect of the word "prejudice" been cut down because it is only "by virtue of a law" already passed and which already applies, and not a question of the law which may very shortly be passed or applied?

8.58 p.m.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: I should not like to accept the distinction which the hon. and learned Gentleman draws between "impede" and "prejudice," namely, that prejudice refers to something which is about to be done or is expected to be done. I should have thought that the meaning of the two words were that impediment might be actually obstruction, whereas prejudice might mean some action which puts the executive act of the Federation in a worse light and makes it less acceptable to the people for whom the authority is being exercised. My present impression is that the addition of the words to the first Sub-section does not in any way cut down the meaning of "prejudice "any more than it does the meaning of "impede." I confess that the point had not occurred to me. If I may perhaps in rather a quieter moment look and see if the Amendment in any way deprives the word of its meaning, I shall be very much obliged to the hon. and learned Gentleman for drawing my attention to it.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made: In page 79, line 17, after "may," insert "after considering any representations made to him by the Ruler.".

In line 18, at the end, insert:
Provided that, if any question arises under this section as to whether the executive authority of the Federation is exercisable in a State with respect to any matter or as to the extent to which it is so exercisable, the question may, at the instance either of the Federation or the Ruler, be referred to the Federal Court for determination by that Court in the exercise of its original jurisdiction under this Act."—[The Attorney-General.]

CLAUSE 130.—(Complaints as to interference with water supplies.)

9.1 p.m.

Mr. BUTLER: I beg to move, in page 80, line 30, after "thereof," to insert:
in the water from any natural source of supply in any Governor's or Chief Commissioner's Province or Federated State.
This and the following Amendment are merely drafting Amendments to bring the substance of the words which follow paragraph (b)closer up to the front of the Clause so as to be related to the word "interests.".

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made In page 80, line 37, leave out from "from," to "Government," in line 39, and insert "that source, the."—[Mr. Butler.]

CLAUSE 132.—(Interference with water supplies of Chief Commissioner's Province.)

Mr. BUTLER: I beg to move, in page 82, line 31, after "Province," to insert:
in the water from any natural source of supply in any Governor's Province or Federated State.
This and the next Amendment are also drafting Amendments to serve the same purpose as the Amendments moved to Clause 130.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made In page 82, line 38, leave out from "from," to the first "he," in line 39, and insert, "that source."—[Mr. Butler.]

CLAUSE 137.—(Certain succession duties, stamp duties, terminal taxes and taxes on fares and freights.)

9.2 p.m.

Mr. BUTLER: I beg to move, in page 84, line 20, to leave out "water."
The Amendment is consequential, although it comes at this stage, on an Amendment to be made in the Schedule. It is proposed, as hon. Members will see if they refer to the Order Paper, at a later stage, that the terminal taxes on goods or passengers carried by water should be left to the Provinces, since there will be no convenient Federal machinery for collection. It is therefore necessary to make the Amendment at this stage of the Bill, and the question of substance, if there be any disagreement on the subject, will really come on the Schedule when we reach it.

9.3 p.m.

Sir S. CRIPPS: I want to ask a question whether this may not possibly prejudice the unification of transport by dealing with the taxation on the fares and general charges and so on under three different methods of transport by
different legislatures. Does the hon. Gentleman not think that they rather tend to prejudice the question of unification of the whole of the transport services under a single legislative authority?

Sir H. CROFT: I would remind my hon. Friend that the question of road transport was raised on the Committee stage, and would not that also necessitate the same consideration as that which the hon. and learned Gentleman has just mentioned?

9.4 p.m.

Mr. BUTLER: We have been ruled in this matter by the question of machinery for collecting these terminal taxes. We find that there is no considerable Federal machinery, and that it would be more convenient, therefore, for the unit to collect. We do not anticipate that the result will be that, owing to a unit collecting these taxes, it will prevent the circulation of goods or passengers by waterways. The three items can be raised on the insertion of the lists when we come to the Schedules, but at this stage I would only say to my hon. and gallant Friend and the hon. and learned Member who raised this matter, that we consider that it is more important to collect these taxes satisfactorily, and we do not consider that there will be any undue check to the distribution of goods by making a decision at this stage.

Amendment agreed to.

CLAUSE 138.—(Taxes on Income.)

9.5 p.m.

The CHANCELLOR of the DUCHY of LANCASTER (Mr. J. C. Davidson): I beg to move, in page 84, line 40, to leave out "other than a corporation tax."
This Amendment and two subsequent Amendments are really only drafting ones. There was never any intention to include corporation tax among taxes on income. The last Amendment, in page 86, line 4, will make that clear by inserting the definite statement that taxes on income do not include a corporation tax.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. DAVIDSON: I beg to move, in page 85, line 10, after "that," to insert:
(a) the percentage originally prescribed under this Sub-section shall not be increased by any subsequent Order in Council;
(b).
This and the two subsequent Amendments on the same subject are moved in order to remove some doubts which the legal advisers of the Princes hold. The States have represented to us that there is a possibility that they may be called upon to pay a surcharge because the percentage of Income Tax which may be paid over by the Federal Centre to the Provinces may be so great as to impair the financial stability of the Centre. Therefore, they have suggested, and we have accepted their suggestion, that as regards the Order in Council respecting the periods during which the tax is to be paid over the fixing of the periods, should be left until after the expert committee has gone into the matter. As regards this Order in Council which follows settling the percentage of tax on the one hand which is to be paid over to the Provinces and also the length of the two periods referred to in Sub-section (2) of this Clause, the percentage shall not be increased and the periods shall not be reduced by any subsequent Order. Once the Order in Council has been passed, it shall not be altered.

9.7 p.m.

Sir H. CROFT: With regard to this matter, which appears to make considerable change, will the representative of the Government tell us whether all the parties who originally agreed to the scheme have given their consent, whether the Secretary of State has been able to get into touch with those various bodies in British India, and whether they also agree to this proposal, otherwise we may be running round in a vicious circle, agreeing to a principle and then coming up against a bump, with Sir Tej Bahadur Sapru, who represents the central body of opinion, holding up his hand and saying, "No further.".

9.8 p.m.

Sir S. HOARE: These Amendments make a change in form rather than in substance. It was never contemplated, at any rate in our recent discussions, that the Provinces should at any time within measurable distance receive more than 50 per cent. of the taxes on income. It was on that calculation that the States made their estimates as to the liability which they might be called on to pay in surcharge in the event of a financial emergency. The States were anxious therefore that we should put into the Bill the
actual maximum that the Provinces were likely to receive. They were anxious to see quite clearly before they acceded what was their ultimate liability for surcharge. We are not putting in in so many words the actual percentage, but we are saying "You shall see what it is that the Order in Council sets out as the Provincial contribution before you are called upon to execute your Instrument of Accession. In this Clause therefore the Princes will see quite clearly what is their ultimate liability, and they will see also that that ultimate liability cannot be altered by subsequent Orders in Council. The Order in Council will be laid once and for all. The Princes will see the Order in Council and it can therefore not be urged in future that they entered the Federation on one assumption as to the allocation of taxes between the Centre and the Provinces and that from the very beginning they did not see the position quite clearly. The House will therefore see that this is much more a change of form than substance. I do not think that there is the least likelihood that any of the various interests in India have any substantial objection to it.

Sir H. CROFT: Will it be possible to tell us what the ultimate liability will be? Will it be possible to give any such assurance?

Sir S. HOARE: The Order in Council will have to lay down provisions as to the allocation of Income Tax. No doubt they will have to be flexible. There will be a period of time during which the allocation can be made. We have always assumed that before the Federation could be brought into being the allocation of Income Tax, which is one of the vital features in the problem, will have to be laid down definitely and clearly.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made In page 85, line 25, after "that," insert:
(i) neither of the periods originally prescribed shall be reduced by any subsequent Order in Council;
(ii)."—[Mr. Davidson.]

9.13 p.m.

Mr. DAVIDSON: I beg to move, in page 85, line 32, to leave out "and Provincial," and insert "Provincial and State."
This Amendment is to meet a small point which was brought to our notice by
the legal advisers of the Princes. They ask that where the Governor-General holds consultations before handing over the Provincial share of taxes, he should also consult the States as well as the Federal and Provincial Governments.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made In page 85, line 39, leave out, "other than a corporation tax."—[Mr. Davidson.]

Mr. DAVIDSON: I beg to move, in page 85, line 43, after the second "the, "insert "net."
This is a drafting Amendment and is to make it clear that the Federal surcharge on the States is net.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made In page 86, line 4, at end insert:
taxes on income" does not include a corporation tax."—[Mr. Davidson.]

CLAUSE 139.—(Corporation tax.)

9.15 p.m.

Mr. DAVIDSON: I beg to move, in page 86, line 23, at the end to insert:
(3) Where the Ruler of a State so elects as aforesaid, the officers of the Federation shall not cal]for any information or returns from any corporation in the State, but it shall be the duty of the Ruler thereof to cause to be supplied to the Auditor-General of India such information as the Auditor-General may reasonably require to enable the amount of any such contribution to be determined.
If the Ruler of a State is dissatisfied with the determination as to the amount of the contribution payable by his State in any financial year, he may appeal to the Federal Court, and if he establishes to the satisfaction of that Court that the amount determined is excessive, the Court shall reduce the amount accordingly and no appeal shall lie from the decision of the Court on the Appeal.
This is to provide the machinery for the purpose of assessing the tax where the ruler makes a contribution in lieu of the tax or allows the tax to be imposed direct on his subjects. The amendment also allows him the right of appeal to the Federal Court. We gave a promise to deal with this matter during the Committee stage.

Sir H. CROFT: Does this give a special privilege to the rulers of Federated States I Can we have a little further explanation as to why this change is made?

9.16 p.m.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: This is not a new proposal, but an inevitable piece of machinery. The earlier part of the Clause provides that any legislation imposing a corporation tax shall allow the Ruler of a Federated State two alternatives. He may allow the tax to be imposed direct on his subjects or he may elect to pay a sum which is to be equivalent to the net yield of the tax. It is obvious that one would want to know how the yield is to be ascertained. It is, therefore, provided that the Ruler of a State, if he chooses the second alternative, has to give information to the auditor-general who will then make the necessary computation. If the Ruler of a State thinks that too much is imposed upon him he may go to the Federal Court who will fix the amount to be paid. It is the same sort of arrangement that we have in this country in connection with the railways. The Federal Court will assess the amount on the basis of the information which it is the duty of the Ruler to give to the auditor-general. It is not new legislation but a necessary piece of machinery.

Amendment agreed to.

CLAUSE 141.—(Prior sanction of Governor General required to Bills affecting taxation in which Provinces are interested.)

9.19 p.m.

Mr. DAVIDSON: I beg to move, in page 87, line 13, at the end, to insert:
(2) The Governor-General shall not give his sanction to the introduction of any Bill or the moving of any amendment imposing in any year any such Federal surcharge as aforesaid unless he is satisfied that all practicable economies and all practicable measures for otherwise increasing the proceeds of Federal taxation or the portion thereof retainable by the Federation would not result in the balancing of Federal receipts and expenditure on revenue account in that year.
This may appear to be a rather formidable Amendment, but in fact it transfers to the body of the Bill what has been proposed in paragraph 23 of the Instrument of Instructions. The Governor-General has to satisfy himself that all practical economies have been made and all practical steps taken for increasing the proceeds of Federal taxation.

9.29 p.m.

Mr. ATTLEE: The right hon. Member has not given us any reason why this should be taken from the Instrument of Instructions and put into the Bill. Indeed, it is most undesirable to put a provision of this kind in the Bill because it is so very vague. What is meant by "practicable economies." You may have a view of what are "practicable economies" by hon. Members of this House. In the case of the May Committee they had their views on what were practicable economies, but when it came to giving effect to them it was discovered that they were not politically practicable economies. That was indeed the view of the majority of the Members when they came face to face with their constituents. I think there must be some better words than these, because what may be "practicable economies" from the point of view of making a saving here and there may not be practicable economies in certain political circumstances, and I suggest that there is no reason why this provision should be taken from the Instrument of Instructions and put into the body of the Bill.

9.22 p.m.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: The hon. Member for Limehouse (Mr. Attlee) is a little captious. He has omitted some rather important words. The Amendment Gays, "unless he is satisfied." If it had said "unless all practicable economies had been taken," that would raise a difficult point because it would leave doubt as to who was to decide the question. The Clause says "unless he is satisfied," and "he" is the person to decide what is practicable and what is not practicable. That is very familiar language in our own law, which constantly provides that "unless the court is satisfied that all reasonable steps have been taken." Unless you have the person or body who is to be satisfied stated the difficulties of the hon. Member would be present, but, inasmuch as you have one person who is to settle the question, he has to be satisfied and it is perfectly plain.

9.23 p.m.

Mr. H. WILLIAMS: I am not quite clear about this matter, and I rather agree with the hon. Member for Lime-house (Mr. Attlee). At the same time he was venturing into something about which he did not know very much when
he referred to the Private Members Economy Committee and the action of back benchers then. It was not for lack of any courage on their part that the recommendations were not given effect to. But what does this Amendment mean? In this House no back bencher, perhaps I had better say no private Member as it is a more comprehensive term and includes all back benchers, is permitted to propose an amendment which imposes a charge on the subject. I do not know whether we are trying to set up Parliamentary procedure or sanctioning a method of safeguard. If it is Parliamentary procedure then it would be better to do it by Parliamentary procedure. The Governor-General here is the Governor-General without qualification. He is not "Governor-General in his discretion," or "in the exercise of his individual judgment." It is the Governor-General without any qualification and, therefore, he is acting on the advice of his Ministers. That is, I think, a fair interpretation of the words:
Shall not give his sanction to the introduction of any Bill or the moving of any Amendment.
If the Legislative Assembly in Delhi has the same procedure in these matters as we have then quite clearly nobody can move an Amendment except on the recommendation of the Crown, that is, through a Minister representing the Crown. The existing procedure in this House provides what we are seeking to impose on India—

Mr. ATTLEE: The hon. Member realises, of course, that this applies to the "Governor-General in his discretion," as mentioned in Sub-section(1).

Mr. WILLIAMS: That is Sub-section (1). This is Sub-section (2), which is governed by Sub-section (1). In Subsection (1) you say something must not be done without the sanction of "the Governor-General in his discretion." Then you insert another Sub-section in which you say nothing about the Governor-General in his discretion. If you put those words at the end of the Clause, it rules the whole Clause, but at the end of a Sub-section it rules only that Sub-section, and has no bearing on the other Sub-section. I know no one is more skilful than the Attorney-General in trying to laugh away a good point
when you have made one, but he knows perfectly well I have made a good point.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: One of your worst.

Mr. WILLIAMS: The right hon. and learned Gentleman is busily engaged trying to laugh away the point I have made. It was not I who put two in brackets on the Order Paper. It was put there by the Parliamentary draftsmen, with the consent of the learned Attorney-General. Therefore the words "in his discretion" do not in the least govern Sub-section (2). We have had a great many examples in this Bill of draftsmanship, and in any case where the draftsmen want the words "in his discretion" to govern the whole of the Clause, they have put them at the end. Where the words "in his discretion" are put in one Sub-section only it makes it perfectly clear that in the Sub-section where the words do not appear the Governor-General must act on the advice of his ministers. I hope the learned Attorney-General, in spite of his merriment a minute ago, will be in a, position to answer the very definite point I put before the House.

9.27 p.m.

Sir S. CRIPPS: I should have thought it perfectly clear that the words "the Governor-General in his discretion" govern this Sub-section. The last words in the previous Sub-section are
except with the previous sanction of the Governor-General in his discretion.
This Sub-section begins:
The Governor-General shall not give his sanction.
It cannot conceivably mean anything except the sanction referred to in the previous Sub-section. That is, however, not the point I wanted to make. This Sub-section (2) is obviously laying down an instruction to the Governor-General how he shall exercise his discretion. Surely that is not a matter to put into a constitutional Statute. That is eminently a matter to put in the directions to the Governor-General. It is not laying down whether or not he shall use discretion, but it is saying "After giving this sanction, which is in your discretion, this is the way in which we want you to use your discretion." I am sure the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney-
General will agree that in laying down a Constitution you do not want to put in as part of the Constitution how the Governor-General should use his discretion. You want to instruct him in his instructions how to use his discretion. All you want in any Constitution is that he shall use his discretion. Surely it will be wiser to leave this Sub-section where it was before, that is in the Instructions to the Governor-General, and not to put it in as part of the constitutional Statute itself.

9.29 p.m.

Sir H. CROFT: I naturally admire the wisdom of the two learned Gentlemen who have given us the legal interpretation of these words, but I must confess, as a layman, that to me the words "in his discretion" do not actually govern this Sub-section.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: They do.

Sir H. CROFT: Very well, I am satisfied on that point. There is something to be said for the point the hon. and gallant Gentleman raised in regard to the expression "all practicable economies." It seems to me a very difficult matter to bring into the body of a Bill, and I rather agree that if it were in the Instructions it would be easier to understand. I presume that the Government want these words embodied in the Bill for the simple reason that there have been certain very glaring cases where we have had to consider a situation such as this. In Ceylon the Finance Minister in the comparatively new democratic constitution there has had several times to impose his will as far as possible on the Government, and I think that the fact that practicable economies were not introduced has resulted in the serious Budget position. A similar thing happened in Newfoundland where, in the oldest democratic institution in the British Empire, the Government-had to take all their powers from them. There you have a situation such as is contemplated in this Clause. I presume it is because the Government do fear that ministers in this new Parliamentary institution will run riot, will be extravagant, will not have due regard to economies, that they think it is necessary to bring this into the body of the Bill. I hope hon. Gentlemen on the Opposition Benches will not carry their hostilities to a Division, because if we
look all round the question it is desirable that we should take cognisance that this situation is almost certain to arise.

Sir ROBERT HAMILTON: I hope we shall be told clearly why this matter has been removed from the Instrument of Instructions. At first sight it seems much more suitable to be in the Instructions to the Governor than in a Bill setting up the Constitution.

9.32 p.m.

Sir S. HOARE: There is nothing serious about this change, nor has it arty relevance to the observations just made by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Bournemouth (Sir H. Croft). These words have excited a great deal of discussion. They were the actual words agreed between the representatives of the Princes and the representatives of British India at the last Round Table Conference and they were confirmed, as far as I remember, during the deliberations with the Indian Delegation to the Joint Select.

Committee. So far, therefore, as the words are concerned, there is a substantial body of Indian agreement behind them. The question then arises whether it is better to put them in the Instrument of Instructions or in the body of the Bill. Originally we put them into the Instrument of Instructions. The Princes' representatives then took the view that they would greatly prefer to have them put into the body of the Bill. We took the view that there was no difference in principle between the two methods. The words were agreed between us, and, that being so, as the Princes attach great importance to having them in the body of the Bill rather than in the Instrument of Instructions, we propose that they should be in the body of the Bill. That is the whole story.

Question put, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill.".

The House divided Ayes, 199; Noes, 28.

Division No. 218.]
AYES.
[9.35 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Elliot, Rt. Hon. Walter
Kerr, Hamilton W.


Adams, Samuel Vyvyan T. (Leeds, W.)
Ellis, Sir R. Geoffrey
Keyes, Admiral Sir Roger


Agnew, Lieut.-Com. P. G.
Emmott, Charles E.G.C.
Kirkpatrick, William M.


Albery, Irving James
Entwistle, Cyril Fullard
Knox, Sir Alfred


Allen, Lt.-Col. J. Sandeman (B'k'nh'd)
Erskine-Bolst, Capt. C. C. (Blackpool)
Law, Richard K. (Hull, S. W.)


Allen, William (Stoke-on-Trent)
Essenhigh, Reginald Clare
Leckie, J. A.


Aske, Sir Robert William
Evans, David Owen (Cardigan)
Leech, Dr. J. W.


Assheton, Ralph
Evans, R. T. (Carmarthen)
Lees-Jones, John


Astbury, Lieut.-Corn. Frederick Wolfe
Fleming, Edward Lascelles
Leighton, Major B. E. P.


Atholl, Duchess of
Foot, Dingle (Dundee)
Lennox-Boyd, A. T.


Bailey, Eric Alfred George
Foot, Isaac (Cornwall, Bodmin)
Lewis, Oswald


Bossom, A. C.
Fox, Sir Gifford
Lindsay, Noel Ker


Bower, Commander Robert Tatton
Fuller, Captain A. G.
Little, Graham-, Sir Ernest


Brass, Captain Sir William
Ganzoni, Sir John
Llewellin, Major John J.


Briscoe, Capt. Richard George
Gluckstein, Louis Halle
Lockwood, John C. (Hackney, C.)


Broadbent, Colonel John
Goldie, Noel B.
Lovat-Fraser, James Alexander


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Goodman, Colonel Albert W.
MacAndrew, Lieut.-Col. C. G. (Partick)


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (BerkS., Newb'y)
Gower, Sir Robert
MacAndrew, Major J. O. (Ayr)


Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Graves, Marjorie
Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)


Burghley, Lord
Greene, William P. C.
McLean, Major Sir Alan


Burgin, Dr. Edward Leslie
Grenfell, E. C. (City of London)
McLean, Dr. W. H. (Tradeston)


Butter, Richard Austen
Grimston, R. V.
Mallalieu, Edward Lancelot


Butt, Sir Alfred
Gunston, Captain D. W.
Manningham-Buller, Lt.-Col. Sir M.


Campbell, Sir Edward Taswell (Brmly)
Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.
Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. B.


Campbell, Vice-Admiral G. (Burnley)
Hamilton, Sir R. W. (Orkney & Zetl'nd)
Mason, Col. Glyn K. (Croydon, N.)


Castlereagh, Viscount
Hammersley, Samuel S.
Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John


Cayzer, Sir Charles (Chester, City)
Harris, Sir Percy
Mellor, Sir J. S. P.


Cayzer, Maj. Sir H. R. (Prtsmth., S.)
Harvey, George (Lambeth, Kenningt'n)
Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)


Cazalet, Capt. V. A (Chippenham)
Haslam, Henry (Horncastle)
Molson, A. Hugh Eisdale


Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. Sir J. A. (Birm., W)
Haslam, Sir John (Bolton)
Morris, John Patrick (Salford, N.)


Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Edgbaston)
Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Cuthbert M.
Morrison, G. A. (Scottish Univer'ties)


Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.
Hellgers, Captain F. F. A.
Nicholson, Godfrey (Morpeth)


Conant, R. J. E.
Hepworth, Joseph
O'Donovan, Dr. William James


Cooke, Douglas
Herbert, Major J. A. (Monmouth)
O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh


Copeland, Ida
Herbert, Capt. S.(Abbey Division)
Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William G. A.


Courtauld, Major John Sewell
Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.
Orr Ewing, I. L.


Courthope, Colonel Sir George L.
Hope, Capt. Hon. A. O. J. (Aston)
Owen, Major Goronwy


Craddock, Sir Reginald Henry
Hornby, Frank
Patrick, Colin M.


Cranborne, Viscount
Howitt, Dr. Alfred B.
Peake, Osbert


Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
Penny, Sir George


Crookshank, Capt. H. C. (Gainsb'ro)
Hudson, Robert Spear (Southport)
Percy, Lord Eustace


Culverwell, Cyril Tom
Inskip, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas W. H.
Perkins, Walter R. D.


Davidson, Rt. Hon. J. C. C.
Jackson, Sir Henry (Wandsworth, C.)
Petherick, M.


Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)
James, Wing-Com. A. W. H.
Peto, Geoffrey K. (W'verh'pt'n, Bliston)


Davison, Sir William Henry
Jesson, Major Thomas E.
Pickering, Ernest H.


Dickie, John p.
Kerr, Lieut.-Col. Charles (Montrose)
Pickthorn, K. W. M.


Procter, Major Henry Adam
Savory, Servington
Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne)


Radford, E. A.
Shuts, Colonel Sir John
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of


Ramsay, Capt. A. H. M. (Midlothian)
Sinclair, Col. T. (Queen's Unv., Belfast)
Todd, A. L. S. (Kingswinford)


Ramsay T. B. W. (Western Isles)
Smiles, Lieut.-Col. Sir Walter D 
Train, John


Ramsbotham, Herwald
Smith, Sir J. Walker-(Barrow-in-F.)
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Ramsden, Sir Eugene
Smith, Sir Robert (Ab'd'n & K'dine, C.)
Wallace, Captain D. E. (Hornsey)


Rankin, Robert
Somervell, Sir Donald
Ward, Lt.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)


Rea, Walter Russell
Somerville, Annesley A. (Windsor)
Warrender, Sir Victor A. G.


Reid, William Allan (Derby)
Somerville, D. G. (Willesden, East)
Watt, Major George Steven H.


Remer, John R.
Sotheron-Estcourt, Captain T. E.
Wayland, Sir William A.


Rhys, Hon. Charles Arthur U.
Southby, Commander Archibald R. J.
White, Henry Graham.


Roberts, Aled (Wrexham)
Spencer, Captain Richard A.
Williams, Herbert G. (Croydon, S.)


Roberts, Sir Samuel (Ecclesall)
Spender-Clay, Rt. Hon. Herbert H.
Wilson, Lt.-Col. Sir Arnold (Hertl'd)


Robinson, John Roland
Spent, William Patrick
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Ropner, Colonel L.
Stanley, Rt. Hon. Oliver (W'morland)
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)
Stewart, J. Henderson (File, E.)
Womersley, Sir Walter


Ruggles-Brise, Colonel Sir Edward
Stones, James
Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton (S'v'noaks)


Rutherford, John(Edmonton)
Storey, Samuel



Rutherford, Sir John Hugo (Liverp'l)
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir Murray F.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Salmon, Sir Isidore
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid Hart
Captain Sir George Bowyer and


Samuel, M. R. A. (W'ds'wth, Putney)
Sutcliffe, Harold
Dr. Morris-Jones.


Sanderson, Sir Frank Barnard
Tate, Mavis Constance



NOES.


Adams, D. M. (Poplar, South)
Edwards, Charles
Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)


Attlee, Clement Richard
Gardner, Benjamin Walter
Mainwaring, William Henry


Banfield, John William
Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Arthur
Milner, Major. James


Batey, Joseph
Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan)
Smith, Tom (Normanton)


Cleary, J. J.
Griffiths, George A. (Yorks, W. Riding)
Strauss, G. R. (Lambeth, North)


Cripps, Sir Stafford
Grundy, Thomas W.
Tinker, John Joseph


Daggar, George
Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Joseph


Davies, David L. (Pontypridd)
Lawson, John James
Williams, Thomas (York., Don Valley)


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Logan, David Gilbert



Debbie, William
Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—




Mr. John and Mr. McEntee.

CLAUSE 144.—(Savings.)

9.44 p.m.

Mr. DAVIDSON: I beg to move, in page 88, line 3, to leave out from "which," to "were," in line 5, and to insert "immediately before the commencement of Part III of this Act."
This and a subsequent Amendment are little more than drafting Amendments to cover a tax which was not only levied on 1st January, 1935, as provided for in the Clause, but which may have been imposed previously to that date.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made In page 88, line 8, after "area," insert:
under a law in force on the first day of January, nineteen hundred and thirty-five."—[Mr. Davidson.]

CLAUSE 145.—(Calculation o f "net proceeds", etc.)

Amendment made In page 88, line 21, after "aforesaid "insert "and to any other express provision of this chapter."—[Air. Davidson.]

CLAUSE 146.—(Expenses of the Crown in connection with Indian States.)

Mr. DAVIDSON: I beg to move, in page 88, line 34, to leave out from "sums," to the first "any," in line 37, and to insert:
stated by His Majesty's Representative for the exercise of the functions of the Crown in its relations with Indian States to be required for the discharge of those functions, including the making of
This is to make clear that paramountcy expenditure is provided for by the Governor-General.

Amendment agreed to.

CLAUSE 147.—(Payments from or by Indian States.)

Mr. DAVIDSON: I beg to move, in page 89, line 1, after "contributions," to insert:
"and payments in respect of loans and other payments due.
The word "contributions "is felt to be rather too narrow and these additional words are therefore required.

Duchess of ATHOLL: Do these words involve an addition to the actual payments which will have to be made and, if so, can the right hon. Gentleman give us an idea of what will be the additional sum payable?

Mr. DAVIDSON: If the Noble Lady will look into the Clause she will find that this is simply an extension of the wording. The Clause, as amended, will provide that all cash contributions and payments in respect of loans and other payments due
from or by any Indian State, which, if this Act had not been passed, would have formed part of the revenues of India, shall be received by His Majesty and if His Majesty has so directed be placed at the disposal of the Federation. It is merely to enable payments other than those which are technically cash contributions to be made.

Duchess of ATHOLL: Does not that mean an addition to the amount?

Mr. DAVIDSON: No, if the Noble Lady will consider the matter I think she will find that it works the other way round.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made In page 89, line 9, at the end, insert "or payments."—[Mr. Davidson.]

CLAUSE 148.—(Remission of States' contributions.)

9.49 p.m.

Sir R. CRADDOCK: I beg to move, in page 89, line l6, to leave out Sub-section (2).
It seems to me and to most people with whom I have discussed the matter that these arrangements whereby sums are to be remitted or repaid to a State which has paid them for specific military guarantees are not satisfactory, although they are probably an inducement to the States to come into the Federation. The reason why I lay stress on this question is because these sums were paid in recognition of the fact that the Crown—or the East India Company when these treaties were originally made—in consideration of these payments protected the Prince with whom the treaty was made, both against external attack and against rebellion in his State. It was necessary in those days in order to fulfil that obligation to maintain a force on the spot because in hot weather or in the rains it might not be possible to get troops anywhere near where they were required. Therefore localities were marked out in which certain forces were kept in order to guarantee the continued independence and protection of States. It is now suggested that all these payments should be remitted, although as a matter of fact the obligation still continues with the Crown. It still has to protect the Princes from external attack or internal disorder, only it does so in another way, because ever since the Kitchener scheme
came into force in India these scattered garrisons, not only at various points in the States but in British India, were all removed and the forces were concentrated in the stations in India which were deemed suitable for them. That process has been going on for a long time, and it seems absurd that the Princes should be repaid these payments which are made on account of arrangements for which the Crown is still responsible. The Crown is not being relieved of its obligations, and those obligations might cost quite as much in these days, if not more, than it used to cost when there were small local garrisons located within a certain distance of or actually in the country concerned.
I should like to hear from the Government the exact grounds upon which these repayments are to be made, or what other method is to be adopted to compensate the Princes for this so-called removal of protection. These may at the time when they were made, have been specific military guarantees, for reasons of climate and lines of communication, and so on, but those guarantees continue unabated, and we always find when there is any disturbance that it is the Army which is sent in to restore order and protect the Prince. That has been understood for years and has been the ordinary course, and a great many cases of it have occurred quite recently. I think there is very little justification for remitting these payments which the Princes have hitherto been making, and it is to be remembered that the political expenses of India have been met very largely from the tribute and other payments of the States. Now, with the Federation coming, the tributes are to be remitted. If they are in some cases rather heavy, as is the case in some States, there might be a case for reduction, but the idea of completely remitting these tributes—you may call them by another name if you like—at a time when British India is being called upon to spend more money in connection with political expenditure seems to me to be entirely wrong. In particular I think this method of remitting money paid for certain guarantees which, though not exactly in the same form as they were when the provision was originally made, yet represent the same guarantees translated into more modern terms, requires most careful examination. In order to ascertain
what the Government have to say on this point, I move the omission of this Subsection.

9.57 p.m.

Duchess of ATHOLL: I beg to second the Amendment.
I hope the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster will not think I am misrepresenting the report of the committee over which he presided if I say that that committee indicated that there was a weaker case for payment being made for ceded territories than for remission of the tributes of the Princes, which was the first recommendation of the committee. They tell us that while at the Round Table Conference there had been
practically unanimity in favour of the ultimate remission of tributes, opinion as regards the treatment of ceded territories was divided.
They go on to tell us that the question of the valuation of the ceded territories was difficult, because it was a, long time since some of them had been ceded to the Government of India. They say:
If conditions had remained constant during the last hundred years, the task of recommending a financial adjustment in lieu of the cessions would not have presented any particular difficulty; but conditions have entirely changed in the interval.
They explain that the revenues of some territories have greatly increased, and they say that the cost of administering
the territories has also greatly increased, that
Such items as education, medical relief, and public works, which found no place in the budgets of our earlier administrations, now require more money than taxation can supply.
They make it clear that there was no surplus revenue derived from these territories out of which payments could be made, and they say that the surplus was negligible compared with the net value of the States at the time when they had been ceded.
They go on to say that the States would have been perfectly willing to take back the territories which they had originally ceded, but the Committee say:
We are given to understand that retrocession is not within the bounds of practical politics,
and that their Terms of Reference did not allow them to consider it. When we remember the very strong protest that
as been made by the inhabitants of Bangalore and Tangasseri against the proposed cession of those territories to certain Indian States, we can understand that it is not considered practical politics to hand these ceded territories back to the States concerned. The Committee were therefore limited to considering payments for the ceded territories, and they go on to say:
To impose a method of valuation which deprives the States of all claim to financial compensation, and at the same time to refuse the alternative of retrocession, is unlikely to satisfy the Darbars or encourage them to enter Federation, and it is imperative that any recommendations which we make should be based on some principle which the States can be persuaded to accept as equitable.
Therefore they recommend that the valuation of the ceded territories should be their net value at the date of cession. In other words, they are to be valued at a sum compared to which the surplus of revenue in those territories is to-day negligible. It is only fair to say, however, that privileges sacrificed by the Princes will be deducted from the payments to be made. It is clear from the extracts which I have read from the report of the Committee that they did not consider that there was any great question of principle involved. It was merely a case of receiving directions from the home Government to make financial adjustments in respect of the ceded territories. Nor was the question a widespread one, involving a large number of Staes. As a matter of fact, only four States will benefit by the proposed terms, but three of them at least are very important States from the point of view of this Bill, because three of these States will contribute no less than 7,500,000 of population to the 40,000,000 or so of population necessary to secure the 50 per cent. which is the first criterion for the setting up of Federation. These three States will further be entitled to eight out of the 52 States seats in the Upper Federal Chamber, which will form the second condition precedent to Federation. Obviously, therefore, from the point of view of the Government, it is of importance to secure the adherence of these States.
I am sorry to have to enter on a discussion of a delicate question, but I cannot forget that at an earlier stage in our Debates the Chancellor of the Duchy,
when this subject was under consideration in Committee, protested against the use of the word "bribery" in this connection. I was not present on that occasion, but if I had been I should have read to the Committee the quotations from my right hon. Friend's report that I am now about to give. Perhaps hon. Members have already noticed that I read a passage in which the Committee stated not to impose a method of valuation which deprives the States of all claim to financial compensation, and at the same time to refuse the alternative of retrocession, is unlikely to satisfy the Durbars or encourage them to enter Federation. That, I think, shows what was in the minds of the Committee in making this recommendation. On an earlier page they said that they were
exclusively confined to preparing the way to Federation.
On a later page in their report, towards the end, they say:
We desire to say emphatically at the outset that nothing we have proposed has any relevance to the position of States, if there should he any such, which elect to stand out of Federation. We were constituted a Committee to deal with particular aspects of federal finance, and … we were not empowered to make recommendations for the settlement of financial questions outstanding between British India and the States on any other basis than Federation.
Therefore, I cannot understand how it can possibly be held that these proposed payments are not financial inducements —in other words, bribes. But I do not wish to stress that word; it is an unpleasant one. I think, however, we must all agree on the fairness of the words "financial inducements." The first comment I have to make is that such a method of procedure is very unfair to the States concerned. It is natural for us all to wish to receive payment for something which before we have given without payment, and it may well he that the Rulers of the States concerned feel themselves in a very difficult position between their natural desire to accept these payments on the one hand, and apprehension that entering the Federation should mean surrender of some rights of their States, should mean the surrender of something which they may feel to be in the permanent interest
of their States. To offer inducements of this kind does seem to me to be likely to put many Rulers in a diffi-
cult position. My second comment is that it means putting an additional burden of taxation on people, the vast majority of whom are extremely poor, and already heavily burdened with taxation partly owing to the increased cost of administration in India in the last 14 years, people suffering from low agricultural prices, and people on a very low standard of living.
Finally, I say that this method of procedure is something which is quite inconsistent with the traditions which we regard to-day as typical of our country. Two hundred years ago a great constitutional change was carried through between England and Scotland by this very method of offering money. It is a well-known historical fact, but no one is proud of it to-day. One hundred years ago there was a similar transaction, I understand, with regard to the union with Ireland, and no one is proud of that.

Mr. McKIE: Is that argument an argument against the legislative union between England and Scotland?

Duchess of ATHOLL: Not at all. I think that it is a union which, though carried through by very discreditable means, has proved of great benefit. I use that illustration only to show how our standards have risen since then. I have no doubt whatever that during the last 100 years or more our ideas of what is right have risen enormously. A 100 years ago no one thought anything of bribery in elections. We know what elections then cost Members of this House. One of the things of which we are all proud is that bribery has been eliminated, due to the persistent effort and progressive legislation of Parliament. To-day I should have said that bribery in any action by government was something that could not be contemplated, but here we find that it is not out of the picture as regards these great constitutional changes which we are making in India. I deeply regret that the proposal for the future government of that great sub-continent should include a procedure which I regard as utterly unworthy of this country.

10.10 p.m.

Sir A. KNOX: I wish very briefly to support the Amendment. The Noble Lady finally settled on the words "financial inducements." I should like to re-
mind the Committee of the scene when the Joint Select Committee was taking evidence. The right hon. Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill) was giving evidence. There was some mention made of these contributions, and one of the Indian delegates—I think the Prime Minister of Bikaner—intervened and said, "What shall we do if we do not go into the Federation? We shall not get this money.".

Sir S. HOARE: Would the hon. and gallant Gentleman give the exact words?

Sir A. KNOX: I cannot.

Sir S. HOARE: He had better not quote them then.

Sir A. KNOX: I am quoting them as far as I can remember. If the right hon. Gentleman has got the words, he will no doubt correct me. The general sense was, "What shall we do if we do not go into the Federation? We shall not get this money." The Noble Lady spoke of the financial inducement for Scotland joining England. I remember reading of the financial inducement to Ireland. I think I read that there was only one honest man who voted for the Union. Surely things ought to have changed from what they were 130 or 140 years ago. We shall want something definite from the Secretary of State to tell us why these adjustments are being made. The hon. Member for the English Universities (Sir R. Craddock) explained very clearly that the military obligation is still to exist. Why should we give up these contributions which are supposed to be for military intervention? We still have to intervene if there is any disorder. We shall still have to maintain order in the whole of the sub-continent. I would like to remind the Committee that a few months ago we decided on a perpetual tribute of £1,500,000 from this country towards the military expenditure in India. This is to be provided by the overburdened taxpayer of Great Britain, and the Indians in the British India Provinces who are suffering, owing to a low standard of living and a high rate of taxation, have to make up this tribute which we are now discussing. I hope the Secretary of State will explain very clearly why these contributions are being given to the States.

10.14 p.m.

Sir B. PETO: I want to add one thing to what the hon. and gallant Member has said. Under all these proposals it is still intended that the general protection of the whole sub-continent of India, which includes these States, will still be in the hands of the British Army left there to protect India. It is not only a question, as has been put before the House, of the necessity for expense to be incurred in the protection of the Indian States or ceded territory, but there is the wider question of the protection of the whole sub-continent. Therefore, it seems to me that if this Sub-section is not omitted the arrangements which have already been made under the existing Government of India for payment to be made to the Indian States should be remitted in respect of the ceded territories, when the whole protection of India, States included, remains exactly as it was. As my hon. and gallant Friend reminded us, this country is paying £1,500,000 in addition to what it paid before towards the maintenance of British troops in India. That being the major consideration, we should like to hear from the Government, in answer to this Amendment, what has taken place under these proposals for an altered form of Government in India to alter the major position, which is that the States, as well as British India, have the protection of the British Army.
That being so, I can see no reason for these financial adjustments by the passage of this Bill. Rather I think, if there is any balance to be adjusted, that it would be a balance on the other side, because when we were more closely connected with India and gained some advantage from that connection, undoubtedly there might be held to be something, which could not be represented by any figure, which made it to the general interest of this country to protect India. We are handing over the Government of India under this new Federation, giving the States the opportunity of entering it, and still leaving the protection by this country over India. Therefore, I think that if there be any financial adjustment to be made in any way, it ought to be on the other side and not on the side of remission.

10.17 p.m.

Mr. ANNESLEY SOMERVILLE: I do not quite understand how the military
guarantees mentioned here can be waived. Surely on the question of maintaining law and order in a State, supposing there is confusion or disorder with which the Ruler cannot cope, the obligation still remains on the Governor-General to send troops into the State in order to maintain law and order. One can understand that a Government is naturally sensitive at references to the payments of money and to cessions of territory, as in the case of Bangalore at this particular time, but one cannot help asking how it is that these matters are coming to a head just at this moment. It is proved by this question coming up for settlement at this moment, that the States are not particularly anxious to come into the Federation. They are not showing any particular alacrity in doing so. One continually hears from supporters of this Measure that the States intend to make the best
bargain that they can. It is not very promising for the future Federation that it should be founded in such an atmosphere.

10.19 p.m.

Mr. DAVIDSON: At the outset of my reply to this short Debate, I would like to quote a passage in my report which the Noble Lady did not quote:
Our inquiries establish beyond all doubt that tributes and cessions of territory have, for the most part, a common origin, and that as often as not it was entirely a matter of chance whether a State paid tribute or ceded territory instead.
Nobody, I think, has disagreed with the proposals of the Round Table Conference and of the Joint Select Committee and the Clauses in the Bill which provide for the principle of the revision of cash contributions made by the States because they are anti-federal, as we discovered when we investigated the matter in India. As a matter of principle you cannot differentiate between ceded territories which had the same object as cash contributions, and in equity to those States who have ceded territories instead of paying cash contributions it was only fair that the contribution, whenever it was made and in whatever form, should be assessed equally.

Duchess of ATHOLL: Objection was taken to all these payments, certainly on the Second Reading, by some of us.

Mr. DAVIDSON: The Noble Lady is quite right in regard to ceded territory.

Duchess of ATHOLL: No, I mean to the whole question of contributions.

Mr. DAVIDSON: I accept the Noble Lady's assurance on that point, but I am arguing on the logic of the situation and on a comparison between the two, that is, so far as the origin of tributes on the one hand and ceded territories on the other hand are concerned. But there is another aspect of the question which I would commend to the House. If they have read the second chapter of the Report which deals with ceded territories they will have noticed that the proposals for compensation to the States affect only five States in principle and only four in fact, because Hyderabad, for reasons which I will touch upon later, has not wished for compensation. With each of these five States we had a treaty which was bilateral, and the guarantees which were given were specific guarantees. I hope the House does not believe that it can be suggested that the States should be given compensation and also maintain their rights to the specific guarantee as well. It is quite untrue to say that the States are not giving up something when they agree to accept compensation for their ceded territories in lieu of the specific guarantees. That is obvious from the ease of Hyderabad. When the alternative was put to Hyderabad whether it would prefer to be compensated for the ceded territories in return for giving up the specific military guarantees it said "No, we prefer to keep the troops." As the House will see if they look at Chapter 2 of the Report which has come to bear my name, the annual compensatory credits are not assessed in the case of Hyderabad.
It is no good our thinking of ceded territories as though they affect the whole of the Indian States. They affect only five. Those five have hitherto been bound by treaty on their side so far as the ceded territories are concerned, and we have been bound on our side under specific military guarantees, and it is impossible in equity to contemplate the giving up by the one party of its rights unless we on the other hand play our part. I do not think it is always fair, although perhaps quite legitimate, to give partial quotations, but I can give an
assurance on the part of myself and every other Member of the Committee that when we examined all these questions we did it with the sole purpose of doing fairness to all parties, including British India, as we say in our report, and we felt there was no possible course in fairness to the States except to make the recommendations we did, which are now included in the Clause. I am afraid that we cannot accept the Amendment.

10.25 p.m.

Mr. BAILEY: The financial payments which are being made to the Princes are a very serious matter. I have hoped against hope that the Minister would be able to give a more satisfactory answer to the question "What are the Princes giving up?" Is it suggested that the wonderful new government that you are setting up will be in any way inferior in the ceded States to the arrangements which now exist? That is no more than a mere theoretical argument, and I seriously ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he thinks that, when the Federation has taken over the whole of the responsibility for the ceded States, the Princes who had those States will be in any worse position than they were before. If a Prince refused to come into the Federation, he might say "I do not want your arrangements for keeping law and order under the Federation," but when he has come in, when, as it were, he has placed the whole of his State at the mercy of the Federal system, it is very strange if he says, "I am not very concerned about the ceded area." It is attributing low motives to the Princes. Is it suggested that they will accept a financial payment in order to lower the military safety of those areas? I cannot think that they have so little regard for the welfare of the portions of territory that they have ceded.
If one of the Princes thought that the ceded areas would be better off if the specific guarantees were kept up, would he look for a payment for himself? I do not like to think so meanly of the Princes; would a Prince agree that a lower payment should be accepted for the ceded area? I cannot believe it of the Princes, and although I could believe it of the Government the Princes are altogether above that sort of thing. I am glad that the Government are applauding
a rectitude that they may not always themselves possess.
When we examine this—I do not know what words to use, because Ministers are apt to be a little thin-skinned when we come down to the basic facts of this somewhat unsavoury Federation—when all is said and done you want to get four Princes into the Federation, so you are paying them something to come in. Is not that the real position, and does not everybody in the House know that that is so? When has a single arrangement been made which operated against any Prince coming in? The other day we heard of two Princes who were going to get off their taxation for coming in. We never hear of Princes missing a benefit; benefits are always showered upon Princes who do come in. One would like to know what all these financial benefits are to cost the people of India. This is no doubt only a small case, but one which will be gratefully accepted in the course of time. Although it is a small case it strikes at the root of the Bill.
If the Princes have to be induced to come into your Federation by gifts of money, you have set no limits to your offer. I suppose it will depend upon what they ask. Why not state a maximum? No maximum is stated. Whatever the Princes may ask for coming into the Federation, that the Princes will get. It is a lamentable waste of the funds of the people of India who have to toil and work in order to provide for the keeping of these Princes many of whom have quite sufficient. I appeal to hon. Members of the Opposition with whom I do not always agree—I find myself very seldom in agreement with them—but I hope that they will feel on this occasion what is owing to the toilers of India, and that we should not allow the Government to pilfer away the pennies of the Indian masses in order to persuade some Prince, who otherwise might be a little sensitive about his power to continue his own State and to carry on as he wishes. If the pennies of the masses of the people of India are to be used for this purpose, our opposition to it ought to command the sympathy of those who sit on the benches opposite.
I sympathise with the Chancellor of the Duchy, who is making the best of a bad job, and who, honest man as he is, must feel very keenly the position into which he has been forced in having to defend the Bill. I do not want to pro-
tract his agony or expose his conscience; I expect his own self-condemnation is far more fierce than any with which we can lash him; but I ask the Government, even at this late hour, for the sake of British rectitude, to make these, I will not call them bribes, but financial arrangements between friends, as few and far between as they can. Unless we get some rather more satisfactory explanation of why this particular sweetener is to remain in the Act, I shall have the greatest pleasure in going into the Lobby with my Noble Friend.

10.32 p.m.

Lord E. PERCY: It cannot be expected even with the courtesy of the Front Government Bench, that the sort of mis-statements that have been made in the course of this discussion should go entirely unanswered if the Debate continues. The hon. Member for Gorton (Mr. Bailey) said in the first part of his remarks that he supposed that the specific guarantees given in return for the cession of territory were specific guarantees for the protection of the territory. He will find, when he begins to read something about the subject on which he has tried to talk, that that has nothing whatever to do with the matter. He then went off into disquisitions on his own incorruptibility, and on the low morals of His Majesty's Government. Listening to the discussion, I have realised that some people are never so happy as when they are accusing their fellow Englishmen, or Scotsmen, of corruption. I have always entertained some doubts about the charges made by the Murrays and others in Scotland about the behaviour of the Campbells, and particularly of John, Duke of Argyll, but I will only say to the Noble Lady the Member for West Perth (Duchess of Athol') that, if the charges levelled against John, Duke of Argyll in those days rest on no better foundation than the charges that she has levelled against His Majesty's Government, then indeed the foundation of those historical charges is a very slender one.
Let us consider what in fact we are talking about. My hon. Friend the Member for the English Universities (Sir R. Craddock), who is not here at the moment, gave a long disquisition which had very little relation to the subject of the Amendment. My hon. Friend the Member for Barnstaple (Sir B. Peto)
made some remarks which were surprisingly in error, and my hon. Friend the Member for Gorton, not knowing much about the subject, guilelessly agreed. They say, "But surely the Princes who come into the Federation 'are now going to be secure and will continue as they are now, and therefore why should not they pay exactly what they are paying now? Why should they get 'any compensation?" A very strong point. That State which comes into the Federation will receive precisely the same protection from the Federation. Why then should certain types, chosen quite haphazardly from purely historical influences, pay in addition certain tributes or cede certain privileges in return for nothing but the generalised protection which every State has got, even if it has neither made cash contributions nor ceded any territory. That is precisely the point. That is why, let me tell my Noble Friend the Member for Perth and Kinross, my hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster's Committee were commissioned to confine themselves to States which acceded to the Federation. The State which remains in the Federation in personal relation with the Crown, solely relying upon its old treaties, may justifiably be kept to its old bargain, but when it elects to come into a corporate sovereign entity in which all members are to be, I do not deny that there may be anomalies.

Mr. BAILEY: Many.

Lord E. PERCY: Many no doubt, but we are all trying to reduce the anomalies to the smallest possible compass. When those States come into the Federation, is it fair or reasonable or justifiable by any principle of government or of honour to these our allies for years and centuries past—is it consistent with any of those principles that we should say to them "It is true that you are going to get no benefit, if you give up your specific guarantee, from the Federation other than that which all other States get, and yet we intend to hold you without giving you a concession of territory and the making of cash contributions without compensation. That is the problem we have been considering. I do not say that the solution of that problem has been wholly satisfactory. I do not say that there may not to many questions as to the amount of compensation to be payable which are not determined by this Bill.
There may be many questions to be considered, but it is the principle we are considering. The only arguments urged against it are not arguments of detail as to whether we are paid or not, or whether we are getting the worst of the bargain, but imputations of corruption and bribery—low motives—from a lot of supreme sea-green incorruptibles sitting on those benches. Really one might listen to accusations of that kind if they came from one's friends who had devoted real attention to this subject and had come to the conclusion that these arrangements were fundamentally wrong, but when they are supported only by fragmentary misquotations and by arguments which show a complete ignorance of every consideration and every historical fact which has gone to make these problems then, indeed, one can only wish that some of one's hon. Friends could disagree in policy with the Members of their party without imputing to their fellow Members motives which one gentleman does not impute to another outside this House.

10.41 p.m.

Sir H. CROFT: I do not want to stand between the House and the Division Lobby, but I must say that I always feel very youthful in the presence of my Noble Friend. He reminds me very much of the days when I had to go before my tutors for being a little late. The feelings of humility that I had in those days I am sure that my hon. Friends must have felt this evening under the rebuke of the Noble Lord. He referred to the fact that it was not consistent with our honour to have gone on with this scheme without making these various arrangements with regard to ceded territories, troops, etc. There are many of us when we remember the most solemn pledge that was given to the Princes of India, the unconditional pledge which was given to the people of India by Queen Victoria, which has been honoured by every King-Emperor, who feel that it is not consistent with our honour in any way to have endeavoured to persuade the Princes to enter Federation. We feel that very strongly and we are entitled to feel it.
In supporting the Amendment of my hon. Friend I am not hostile to the Princes. I have very friendly feelings for them. I believe that they may yet save their country from the disaster which
confronts it at the present time by refusing to join what I believe is now generally called the Princes' suicide club, at Delhi. I hope that they will think it best not to enter even at this late hour. When Ministers and their Noble apologists stand up in this House and endeavour to persuade us that there is no influence in the matter of cession of territories and so on in this Clause they are playing a little too much upon the imagination of the House. It is true, surely, that these arrangements in regard to territory on one side and troops on the other, arrived at not many long years ago, have nothing to do with the subject matter before us.

Lord E. PERCY: Oh !How long does the word of Great Britain last?

Sir H. CROFT: I suggest that it would be perfectly honourable if these arrangements were to stand for all time outside this particular scheme into which you are using every sort of argument to try and persuade the Princes to come, knowing full well that once the Princes have entered this system their Princely rights and dignities will no longer be inviolate. You know that perfectly well. You may say that times change, but if ever there was a solemn pledge it was the pledge that we undertook to our noble allies to see that they were for ever protected. Does the Noble Lord for one moment imagine that in a few years time any Prince who enters this Federation is not going to find that the whole of his population will be infected by this democratic virus and that they will be submerged with this system all around them? I would remind the House that by this proposal you will make the defence of India more expensive. All through the picture the British taxpayer has ultimately had to foot the bill. Only last year an additional expenditure of £1,500,000 was put on the people of this country for the transport of troops to India. The House scarcely noticed it. What a noise would have been made if that additional expenditure had been put upon us in any other connection.
I submit that the defence of the Indian native States will be as great in the days to come to this country. Is it not the fact that by a strange coincidence British troops had to intervene in the native States of the two Princes who were responsible for the Federation
proposals. When trouble arises it is always communal trouble, and it is always British troops who have to intervene. I make no charge against anyone but I wish that the Measure could have gone through without anything which could look like an inducement to the Princes of India. The right hon. Gentleman would have been on much stronger ground in putting forward his claim if he could have said that the Princes came in without any sort of pressure, that never did the Viceroy endeavour to persuade them to enter the scheme, and if Mr. Akbar Hadari had never said that the Princes were pressed relentlessly from start to finish to enter the Federation. If there had been nothing of that character everyone will agree that it would have been much better for the future success of the scheme.

10.48 p.m.

Mr. ATTLEE: I have a certain sympathy with the Amendment, but I am in some difficulty when it is supported by such extraordinary arguments and by a complete absence of a knowledge of the facts. The hon. Member for Gorton (Mr. Bailey) had not the slightest idea what a ceded territory meant, and I am equally at a loss to understand the speech of the hon. and gallant Member for Bournemouth (Sir H. Croft). He makes the most extraordinary shuttlecock movements backwards and forwards. At one moment he says that it will be a terrible thing if the territories of the Princes are invaded by democracy; and in the next sentence he says that they are selling their people for half a lac of rupees. The right hon. Member for Hastings (Lord E. Percy) made a good case except in one particular. After all the States have been brought into much the same relation as regards protection with the paramount power, and, in fact, the special arrangements which were made at certain times with ceded territories have not for many years given these States more protection than is given to the other States. Under the new Constitution we shall still be under practically the same obligations for supporting the Princes in their possessions as was the case before the Bill was introduced and has been the case for many years. In these circumstances, it seems rather a gratuitous surrender.
I do not suggest that you can defend any of these arrangements on the grounds
of logic. We are dealing with things which have grown out of the past, but the fact remains that we have certain obligations which have grown up over a long period of years. I am not going to suggest for a moment that the Princes have been bribed. But I suggest that the Princes have driven a good bargain. They are perfectly entitled to drive a good bargain when asked to come into the Federation, but it is for us to decide whether they should get that bargain or not. I am inclined to think that we have given them too much. With all respect to the right hon. Gentleman's Committee, I think the tendency has been to give too much to the Princes. For that reason—though not in the least for the reasons given by those who have proposed the Amendment—I shall be glad to support it.

10.51 p.m.

Mr. H. WILLIAMS: For once I find myself in agreement with the hon. Member opposite. I do not think that the shadow of the hon. Member for Gorton (Mr. Bailey) will be unduly diminished by the lecture delivered by the Noble Lord. The Noble Lord was flying in the face of the parable of the labourer in the vineyard. Let us look at the logic of the Noble Lord. He would say that the other Princes who will come in will get the same protection as these people; therefore these people should have some payment for giving up these specific military guarantees. Are these five States going to be worse off under the Federation, after they have given up their specific military guarantees, than they are now? Are they going to be worse off, and are they going to be in a position of greater insecurity? If they are, the scheme of the Federation is rather challenged and Clause 12 (I, a) ceases to have any significance. Is that what the Noble Lord means—that Clause 12 (I, a) is not a, certain guarantee to any State which accedes to the Federation? If that paragraph means anything, it does mean that every State which accedes is guaranteed. Then why should you give to these States more than they are now getting?

Lord E. PERCY: Why give them less?

Mr. WILLIAMS: Now we have the admission. Why give less? In other words under Federation the guarantee is to be less.

Lord E. PERCY: No. These specific States are to get less because their specific guarantees are to be withdrawn.

Mr. WILLIAMS: Let us examine this. I have got the guarantee of reasonable safety from the Chief Commissioner of Metropolitan Police—not because there is a policeman outside my front door, but because I share the guarantee with everybody else. I assume that the police of London will give me an effective guarantees for the preservation of law and order in the suburb of London where I live. The Noble Lord tells us that the withdrawal of specific guarantees and their replacement by the special obligations of the Governor-General is going to mean something less to these States [Interruption.] Well, it is one way or the other. The Noble Lord can have it which way he likes—and whichever way he has it he is in difficulties. If he is wise, he will not choose either way. Let us assume that the general guarantee is equal to the specific guarantee. It ought to be. We have no right to pass this Bill unless it is. The other States who are going to get something they have not got now should pay for it; that is logic and equality of treatment. The Noble Lord laughs because he cannot think of any other answer. He likes to lecture this House at times and it is good to give him a dose of his own medicine for once.
What is the position if the guarantee is to be diminished If it is to be diminished, then the assumptions on which this Bill is based are no longer valid. If, on the other hand, the security is equal, why should we pay people for nothing? [Interruption.] When I rose it was ten minutes to 11 o'clock. A Division would have taken ten minutes and another Amendment could not be.

moved to-night. I am not obstructing any business. I never speak at great length in these Debates, though I speak frequently. It is a very good example to follow. Territories were ceded in return for what? For protection. Are they going to get the protection under Clause 12 (1, a) of the Bill? The Secretary of State is not going to say "No" to that, because any answer that is given to that question lands the person who gives it in difficulties at once. No answer is a satisfactory answer from the point of view of defence to the particular matter under discussion. If the protection is effective we have fulfilled our guarantees. If we guarantee effective protection to these people and give it we fulfil every guarantee.

I am glad we have had this discussion, because it shows us exactly where we are. It shows that Clause 12 (1, a) is not that effective instrument for the specific purpose. Every citizen is guaranteed, so far as it is humanly possible, security of his life and property, and you cannot ask more than that. That is a complete general guarantee of protection, unless you want a specific guarantee of a policeman outside your front door all the day long, and that, I presume, is the specific guarantee proposed here.

Lord E. PERCY: No.

Mr. WILLIAMS: I had no intention of taking part in the discussion until I heard the Noble Lord. His case seemed so terribly weak that I have occupied seven minutes of time instead of letting the House go to a Division.

Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out to the word 'there' in line 19, stand part of the Bill.".

The House divided Ayes, 174; Noes, 56.

Division No. 219.]
AYES.
[11.0 p.m.


Adams, Samuel Vyvyan T. (Leeds, W.)
Burghley, Lord
Cranborne, Viscount


Agnew, Lieut.-Com. P. G.
Burgin, Dr. Edward Leslie
Crookshank, Capt. H. C. (Gainsb'ro)


Albery, Irving James
Butler, Richard Austen
Croom-Johnson, R. P.


Allen, Lt.-Col. J. Sandeman (B'k'nh'd)
Butt, Sir Alfred
Culverwell, Cyril Tom


Aske, Sir Robert William
Campbell, Sir Edward Taswell (Brmly)
Davidson, Rt. Hon. J. C. C.


Assheton, Ralph
Campbell, Vice-Admiral G. (Burnley)
Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)


Astor, Maj. Hn. John J. (Kent, Dover)
Castlereagh, Viscount
Dickie, John P.


Baldwin-Webb, Colonel J.
Cayzer, Sir Charles(Chester, City)
Dower, Captain A. V. G.


Beauchamp, Sir Brograve Campbell
Cayzer, Maj. Sir H. R. (Prtsmth., S.)
Elliot, Rt. Hon. Walter


Bower, Commander Robert Tatton
Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)
Ellis, Sir R. Geoffrey


Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W.
Cazalet, Capt. V. A. (Chippenham)
Elliston, Captain George Sampson


Braithwaite, J. G. (Hillsborough)
Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. Sir J. A. (Birm., W)
Entwistle, Cyril Fullard


Brass, Captain Sir William
Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.
Essenhigh, Reginald Clare


Briscoe, Capt. Richard George
Colman, N. C. D.
Evans, David Owen(Cardigan)


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Conant, R. J. E.
Evans, R. T. (Carmarthen)


Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham)
Cook, Thomas A.
Fleming, Edward Lascelles


Buchan, Hepburn, P. G. T.
Copeland, Ida
Foot, Dingle (Dundee)


Fox, Sir Gilford
MacAndrew, Major J. O. (Ayr)
Ropner, Colonel L.


Fremantle, Sir Francis
Macdonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)
Ron Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)


Ganzoni, Sir John
Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)
Rothschild, James A. de


George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)
McKie, John Hamilton
Ruggles-Brise, Colonel Sir Edward


Golf, Sir Park
McLean, Major Sir Alan
Rutherford, John (Edmonton)


Goldie, Noel B.
Mallalieu, Edward Lancelot
Rutherford, Sir John Hugo (Liverp'l)


Gower, Sir Robert
Mander, Geoffrey le M.
Salmon, Sir Isidore


Graves, Marjorie
Manningham-Buller, Lt.-Col. Sir M
Savery, Servington


Grenfell, E.C.(City of London)
Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.
Shute, Colonel Sir John


Grimston, R.V.
Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John
Smiles, Lieut.-Col. Sir Walter D.


Gunston, Captain D.W.
Mills, Major J.D.(New Forest)
Smith, Sir J. Walker-(Barrow-in-F.)


Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.
Mitchell, Sir W. Lane(Streatham)
Smith, Sir Robert(Ab'd'n K'dine, C.)


Hamilton, Sir R.W.(Orkney & Zetl'nd)
Molson, A.Hugh Eisdale
Somervell, SirDonald


Harris, Sir Percy
Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H.(Denbigh)
Sotheron-Estcourt, Captain T.E.


Haslam, Henry (Horncastle)
Morrison, G.A.(Scottish Univer'ties)
Southby, Commander Archibald R.J.


Haslam, Sir John (Bolton)
O'Donovan, Dr. William James
Spears, Brigadier-General Edward L.


Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Cuthbert M.
O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh
Spencer, Captain Richard A.


Heilgers, Captain F. F. A.
Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William G.A.
Spens, William Patrick


Herbert, Capt. S. (Abbey Division)
Orr Ewing, I.L.
Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Fylde)


Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.
Owen, Major Goronwy
Stanley, Rt. Hon. Oliver (W'morland)


Hope, Capt. Hon. A. O. J. (Aston)
Patrick, Colin M.
Stones, James


Hornby, Frank
Peake, Osbert
Storey, Samuel


Howitt, Dr. Alfred B.
Peat, Charles U.
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir Murray F.


Hudson, Capt. A. U. M.(Hackney, N.)
Percy, Lord Eustace
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid Hart


Hudson, Robert Spear(Southport)
Petherick, M.
Sutcliffe, Harold


Inskip, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas W. H.
Peto, Geoffrey K.(W'verh'pt'n, Bliston)
Tate, Mavis Constance


Jackson, Sir Henry (Wandsworth, C.)
Pickering, Ernest H.
Thomas, James P. L.(Hereford)


James, Wing Com, A. W. H.
Pickthorn, K. W. M.
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of


Jasson, Major Thomas E.
Pownall, Sir Assheton
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Johnstone, Harcourt (S. Shields)
Procter, Major Henry Adam
Tufnell, Lieut-Commander R. L.


Kerr, Lieut.-Col. Charles(Montrosn)
Radford, E. A.
Wallace, Captain D. E. (Hornsey)


Kirkpatrick, William M.
Ramsay, Capt. A. H. M. (Midlothian)
Ward, Lt.-Col. Sir A. L.(Hull)


Law, Richard K.(Hull, S. W.)
Ramsay T. B. W. (Western Isles)
Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Wallsend)


Leekie, J. A.
Ramsbotham, Herwald
Warrender, Sir Victor A. G.


Leech, Dr. J. W.
Ramsden, Sir Eugene
Watt, Major George Steven H.


Leighton, Major B. E. P.
Rankin, Robert
White, Henry Graham


Lindsay, Noel Ker
Rea, Walter Russell
Wilson, Lt.-Col. Sir Arnold (Hertf'd)


Llewellln, Major John J.
Reed, Arthur C.(Exeter)
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Lloyd, Geoffrey
Reid, William Allan (Derby)
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Lockwood, John C.(Hackney, C.)
Roberts, Aled (Wrexham)



Lovat-Fraser, James Alexander
Roberts, Sir Samuel (Ecclesall)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Mabane, William
Robinson, John Roland
Sir George Penny and Sir Walter Womersley.


NOES.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Erkine-Bolst, Capt. C. C.(Blk'pool)
Mellor, Sir J. S. P.


Adams, D.M.(Poplar, South)
Fuller, Captain A. G.
Milner, Major James


Astbury, Lieut,-com. Frederick Wolfe
Gardner, Benjamin Walter
Peto, Sir Basil E.(Devon, Barnstaple)


Atholl, Duchess of
Goodman, Colonel Albert W.
Remer, John R.


Attlee, Clement Richard
Greene, William P. C.
Sanderson, Sir Frank Barnard


Bailey, Eric Alfred George
Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Arthur
Sinclair, Col. T. (Queen's Unv.,Belfast)


Balfour, George(Hampstead)
Griffiths, George A. (Yorks, W. Riding)
Smith, Tom (Normanton)


Banfield, John William
Groves, Thomas E.
Somervllie, Annesley A. (Windsor)


Batey, Joseph
Grundy, Thomas W.
Strauss, G.R.(Lambeth, North)


Broadbent, Colonel John
Hepworth, Joseph
Taylor, C.S. (Eastbourne)


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H.C.(Berks.,Newb'y)
John, William
Tinker, John Joseph


Cleary, J. J.
Keyes, Admiral Sir Roger
Waylend, Sir William A.


Courtauld, Major John Sewell
Knox, Sir Alfred
Williams, David(Swansea, East)


Craddock, Sir Reginald Henry
Lawson, John James
Williams, Herbert G. (Croydon, S.)


Cripps, Sir Stafford
Lennox-Boyd, A. T.
Williams, Thomas (York, Don Valley)


Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.
Logan, David Gilbert
Wilmot, John


Daggar, George
Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)



Davies, David L.(Pontypridd)
McEntee, Valentine L.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Dobbie, William
Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)
Mr. Emmott and Mr. Raikes.


Edwards, Charles
Mainwaring, William Henry



Question put, and agreed to.

It being after of the clock, and ojection being taken to further Processing, further Consideration of the Bill, as amended, stood adjourned.

Bill, as amended, to be further considered To-morrow.

GAS UNDERTAKING ACTS, 1920 TO 1934.

Resolved,
That the draft of a Special Order proposed to be made by the Board of Trade
under the Gas Undertakings Acts, 1920 to 1934, on the application of the Salisbury Gas Company, which was presented on the 11th day of April and published, be approved

Resolved,
That the draft of a Special Order proposed to be made by the Board of Trade under the Gas Undertakings Acts, 1920 to 1934, on the application of the Solihull Gas Company, which was presented on the 30th day of April and published, be approved.

Resolved,
That the draft of a Special Order proposed to be made by the Board of Trade under the Gas Undertakings Acts, 1920 to 1934, on the application of the rural district council of Newcastle-under-Lyme, which was presented on the 30th day of April and published, be approved.

Resolved,
That the draft of a Special Order proposed to be made by the Board of Trade under the Gas Undertakings Acts, 1920 to 1934, on the application of the Tenby Gas Consumers Company, Limited, which was presented on the 2nd day of May and published, be approved."—[Dr. Burgin.]

The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

CONVICTION, STOKE-ON-TRENT (SUCCESSFUL APPEAL).

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."— [Captain, Margesson.]

Mrs. COPELAND: I desire to call attention to the case of Lawrence Smith, in accordance with notice that I gave earlier to-day. This Lawrence Smith's sentence has been quashed by the Court of Criminal Appeal, but unfortunately the man had already been in custody for six weeks on remand and had served 10 weeks of the sentence pronounced on him; in other words, he had been in prison ever since January until the 5th May. I do not wish to make any remarks about the legal aspect of the case, but I think it might be right for me to repeat the words of the Lord Chief Justice, who said that the case was both unfortunate and unsatisfactory, that it had been misconceived and the jury misdirected, and that there was really no evidence to support the conviction. I think the case is especially hard, because the man has lost everything. He has lost his character, his business, and his health. He is almost destitute. If he had been convicted for murder or something of that sort, it would not necessarily have been so hard for him, because at least there would have been some mystery or some romance about it, but in this case the man's whole character has been called in. question and his trustworthiness has been challenged, and irreparable damage has been done which will prevent him resorting to the business he has followed, because no one
will ever wish to have business transactions with him, and he now finds himself through a mistake in dire poverty
There are cases of this sort which have been assisted in the past. For instance, there is the case of Adolf Beck, who was compensated and received, I believe, something like £5,000 after he had been five years in prison. One would hardly 'suggest that a grave case of injustice of this sort, in which a. man has been kept in prison for over four months, should not in some way be compensated. Adolf Beck apparently got £1,000 for every year he was in prison. Then there was also the case of Oscar Slater. I mention this point, because I want to show that these two people at least when they came out found a sympathetic world waiting to soothe their wounds. This is a poor man. He comes out, and there is nothing done for him, unless the Minister will be so kind as to consider this question. I am sure he will judge the question on its merits, because I know he is 'anxious to uphold everything that is right. I am confident that in this particular case he will blend mercy with understanding, and will realise something of the unfortunate position in which this man finds himself. It is on these grounds that I venture to bring forward the case. I do hope he will look at it on its merits. I 'am not going to press him for a reply to-night. I hope he will kindly consider it. Lastly, it is said that England is the last home of liberty. Is it not a little hard if a man can be deprived for four months of his liberty, his character, his health wad business—everything taken away from him—and then nothing be done in the way of compensation I I do hope that the Minister will consider the case and will see what can be done about it.

11.12 p.m.

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Captain Crookshank): I think I owe an apology to the hon. Lady. Unfortunately at Question Time neither the Secretary of State nor I happened to be here when we might have dealt with the matter. It is really due to her own zeal for her constituents, because we tried on Friday to get into touch with her, but she had already gone to be among them. I hope, therefore, she does not take it amiss that we were not here this afternoon. With regard to this particular case, from such
inquiries as I have been able to make in the short time since the matter was raised, I find no reason to think, and. I hope she will agree with me thus far, that in the conduct of the case there was any reason to find fault with the action of the police—that is one of the points with which my right hon. Friend is concerned—in preferring a charge against Mr. Smith on the complaint that had been made to them. I cannot say any more with reference to the police than the fact that the particulars in my possession appear to have justified them at the time with charging Mr. Smith with fraudulent conversion and, what is more, they appear to have satisfied the stipendiary magistrate in the court before whom he was brought that there was a prima facie case that justified his committal for trial. Having brought the defendant before the Court, the police have no responsibility for what courts either lower or higher may decide in the case. It really would not be proper for me or for the House to comment on that aspect of the case at all.
So I come back to the fundamental principles. The hon. Lady said she had no remarks to make on the legal aspects of the case, because she was not fitted to deal with them. It does largely turn on the legal aspects. The hon. Lady said it was a, very sad case, because the man had lost his character. As the Court of Criminal Appeal quashed the verdict, there is no loss of character. He has not been convicted of anything. From the point of view of general principle there is really nothing in this case to distinguish it, as far as I can see, from the numerous cases which occur from day to day, in which a defendant is arrested and brought before a. court of summary jurisdiction and is discharged, or else where a defendant is committed for trial and eventually acquitted by a jury.
It seems to be unnecessary for me to remind the House that the fundamental principle of our law is that an accused person should not have to prove his innocence and that it is the duty of the prosecution to prove the charge. Of course, the accused person is entitled to acquittal unless that duty is performed to the satisfaction of the jury. This case went to the jury and they decided that Mr. Smith was guilty. That decision was afterwards quashed by the Court of Criminal Appeal. It follows, there
fore, I think, really as a corollary, that there must be a number of cases in which, if there is grave suspicion, it warrants every kind of investigation and the jury eventually decide that they are not satisfied with the prisoner's guilt. I cannot see that this particular case is materially different from that, except that instead of being found innocent by the lower court it was the Court of Criminal Appeal which quashed the conviction. That is really only moving it one step higher. If the principle is going to be admitted that a person whose application to the Court of Criminal Appeal is successful is automatically entitled to compensation, it follows that you will have to provide some means of compensating everyone who is acquitted in all the lower courts. In fact, everybody who was brought before any court would, because he was not convicted, feel himself entitled to compensation. That would indeed be something very novel in our judicial procedure.
I would take it further. The hon. Lady is aware that the Court of Criminal Appeal has not been established very long in this country, and that when it was established Parliament must presumably have contemplated that from time to time it would quash convictions, but Parliament did nothing on the subject of compensation at that time. It never opened that question. I have not had time to read through all the Debates, but there is nothing in the Act to show there was any indication that Parliament thought there should be compensation in these cases. When one comes to think it out—as I am sure the hon. Lady would agree if she went into it—it is difficult to arrive at any principle on which compensation, generally speaking, can be based because the grounds on which convictions are quashed are very varied. They are sometimes quashed because fresh evidence has come to light since the original trial, or they may be quashed on some difficult question of the interpretation of the law. But if you once admitted that because the Court of Criminal Appeal quashed a conviction there were grounds of compensation, it would be in practice difficult to differentiate between the different scales of compensation which would be required in each case. In any event, it would cut across the principles that have been found to be fundamental not only by
my right hon. Friend, but by every Secretary of State who has had responsibility to the House on this subject.
Of course, that is not to say that we do not all feel the greatest possible sympathy with the hon. Lady's constituent, or with anyone else who may unfortunately fall under perfectly reasonable suspicion; and, after all, the jury convicted in the first instance, so that presumably they thought there was sufficient evidence. Every time this particular question has come up for consideration, Secretaries of State have unfailingly said that they did not see their way to grant or recommend any form of compensation just because the Court of Criminal Appeal or any other superior Court had quashed the conviction of a lower Court. I am afraid I have not in my head at the moment the details of the Beck case or the Slater case which the hon. Lady quoted, but I am certain that if compensation was given in those cases it was given because the men had been convicted and after their conviction something occurred, such as the production of fresh evidence, which caused the case to be reopened. There is no question of that in this instance. This is merely what one might call something in the routine nature of an appeal which quashed an earlier conviction. I have not been able to ascertain that there was any fresh evidence, which was the predominating feature in the cases which the hon. Lady specifically quoted.
To give compensation in a case of this kind would create a precedent which would lead us into very strange fields, and while we cannot but feel great sympathy—everybody must—with any individual in circumstances of this kind, I can only repeat that it is not the case that this man has lost his character through having his conviction by the lower court quashed by the Court of Criminal Appeal. He has retained his character, and I hope, as I am sure the hon. Lady does, that he will find employment again and will realise that he has the sympathy of us all; but there is no grounds at all, for the reasons which I hope I have made clear to the House, on which he should receive compensation.

11.23 p.m.

Sir S. CRIPPS: I quite appreciate the difficulty of the hon. Gentleman. It impossible under any system of law that everybody who is acquitted of a crime should get compensation for having been prosecuted. I think what the hon. Lady probably had in mind in this case, and it is a matter which I would ask the hon. Gentleman and his right hon. Friend to take into account, is the question of imprisonment. This man, never having been proved guilty—at least not eventually proved guilty—nevertheless suffered imprisonment, and it is on that basis that compensation was paid in the cases of Beck and Slater—that they had suffered imprisonment for a long period and that subsequently something turned up to show that they had never been guilty and never ought to have been in prison.
This subject raises also, although I do not know how far it affects this actual case, the question of the unwillingness to grant bail. People who have subsequently been proved not guilty have in many cases suffered a period in prison during remand.

Captain CROOKSHANK: The hon. and learned Gentleman realises that a remand prisoner is not treated in the same way as a convicted prisoner.

Sir S. CRIPPS: But I also realise that I would rather not be even a remand prisoner, and that until a person is guilty, however grave the suspicion, it is extremely desirable, if possible, that he should be allowed his liberty. I do not know what, occurred in this case, but there are many cases in which comments have been made on the difficulty of getting bail and on the number of persons who go to prison as remand prisoners who ought not to be prisoners at all, because they have not yet been proved guilty. They are assumed to be innocent people. It is highly undesirable that innocent people should be kept in prison in any circumstances.
In this case the claim which the hon. Lady makes is, I understand, that this man, who was subsequently proved innocent, had to spend 10 weeks in prison. Her point is not that he was acquitted after being prosecuted, but that he had to spend 10 weeks in gaol. I understand that if your next-door
neighbour spends 10 weeks in gaol, it is not always easy to distinguish whether he has spent them there as a remand prisoner or as an ordinary prisoner, and there is a, liability for people's character to disappear. Although it is argued with perfect justice by the Under-Secretary that this man has as good a character as he ever had, his next-door neighbour does not always understand that, when a man has spent 10 weeks in prison.

11.27 p.m.

Lieut.-Colonel LLEWELLIN: I listened with interest to what the hon. and learned Member for East Bristol (Sir S. Cripps) said. I do not think there are many instances in which a man who has been convicted by a jury is released upon bail before coming up before the Court of Criminal Appeal. He is in a different position from the person who is committed for trial, who, in all reasonable cases ought, of course, to be granted bail, because he has never been convicted. But the man, for whom I think we all have sympathy in this case, was of course convicted before a Court—I think it was a recorder and a. jury—and was ultimately released on a point of law by the Court of Criminal Appeal.
I think that if we in this House were to try to insist that all those people who were similarly released by the Court of Criminal Appeal should be automatically granted compensation, we should be doing a bad thing for the administration of law in this country, because we should put a kind of onus on the police force rather to press cases in the
Court of Criminal Appeal in a way in which I think prosecutions should not be pressed. There would be that kind of incentive behind them, in every case brought before the Court of Criminal Appeal, that when the sentence was quashed compensation ought automatically to follow. I think it would be a very bad principle if we tried to insist upon that in this House, and would not conduce to the fair administration of the criminal law in this country. All that I think we can do for this man is to congratulate him on his subsequent acquittal, and, as my hon. and gallant Friend has said, hope that he will soon get reinstated in work, and that the fact that the hon. Lady has raised this matter will, by giving publicity to it, show to the whole of those people who are his neighbours that this man was completely acquitted, and is worthy of employment in the future just as he was in the past.

11.28 p.m.

Mr. JOHN WILMOT: I rise only to point out to the Under-Secretary when he says that this man, when he was a remand prisoner, received different treatment from that which he would have received had he been an ordinary prisoner, that it is more than probable that half the time he spent in gaol was spent as an ordinary prisoner pending the appeal. That ought to be taken into account in reviewing the case.

Adjourned accordingly at Twenty-nine Minutes after Eleven o'Clock.